Slitherine

terrys wrote:As usual we head off at a tangent ...... much like my attempts at archery have always done.

Thanks for the warning... in case I ever have the opportunity to watch you shoot.

That's archers paradox

Hi All,
When you talk about modifying "skirmisher" effectiveness, does this include LH, or is it only LF?
Will other troops have their speed increased if HF go to 4 MU, just to keep KN and Cataphracts one step ahead of their horsechallenged brethren?
Cheers
Rob

P.S. is there somewhere in the rules(any version) that allows 4 TCs. All the lists I look at state TC 0-3, yet I often see 4 TC armies, so I assume it's written somewhere and I'm blind as usual.

Skirmishers include all light troops.

So far the only troop type whose movement has been increased is the HF. The goal is to make HF more viable in the game.

The CinC is allowed to be a TC, FC, or IC in most lists. If the list allows for 0-3 TC as sub-generals or ally-generals then yes there can be 4 TCs in a list.

RobKhan wrote:Hi All,
When you talk about modifying "skirmisher" effectiveness, does this include LH, or is it only LF?
Will other troops have their speed increased if HF go to 4 MU, just to keep KN and Cataphracts one step ahead of their horsechallenged brethren?
Cheers
Rob

P.S. is there somewhere in the rules(any version) that allows 4 TCs. All the lists I look at state TC 0-3, yet I often see 4 TC armies, so I assume it's written somewhere and I'm blind as usual.

Only certain army lists allow you to have 4 TCs through the use of internal ally contingents. For example Early Medieval German.

As Chris posted. In most / all lists the C-in-C can be IC, FC or TC. Add in 3 TC sub-commanders to make 4 TCs.

Thanks everyone, as I said, I am blind. I spent a lot of time looking at different lists and failed to see that the CinC can be either of command types thus making a 4th TC possible.

ANOTHER POINT RE. FoG3 - I have fallen in love with a range of figures for an army in Empires of the Dragon that has some MF mixed BGs,HW and Bow/Crossbow at 50/50 (not Armoured). I understand the weakness of these mixed BGs as is (therefore a poor tournament army), but before I decide to commit, are these BGs going to be weaker in 3 ??

Cheers
Rob

I don't think anyone is in a position to answer that Rob - sorry.

I understand the weakness of these mixed BGs as is (therefore a poor tournament army), but before I decide to commit, are these BGs going to be weaker in 3 ??

I'm not a play tester, so can't be 100% sure, but I have been told dice on impact have been increased from 2 to 3, whilst rear rank shooting support remains at 1 dice. So, compared to the front rank, rear rank shooting is slightly less effective. As elephants apparently go from 3 dice to 4 (less of an increase than other front ranks) it looks like my Classical Indian army is going into mothballs!

I've also heard that skirmishers are only going to count as half a point per BG towards an army's break point. That sounds like a good move for dealing with the over-use of masses of cheap LF, but isn't that also going to penalise armies with lots of LH archers, such as Parthians, Bosporans, etc?

Going back to my first paragraph, I think increasing the dice thrown at impact is an inspired move. Apart from causing more casualties and, therefore, hopefully speeding up the game, it's also going to reduce the chances of extreme results, such as two or zero hits from 2 dice. Why not use more dice in melee as well?

Chris

ChrisTofalos wrote: Going back to my first paragraph, I think increasing the dice thrown at impact is an inspired move. Apart from causing more casualties and, therefore, hopefully speeding up the game, it's also going to reduce the chances of extreme results, such as two or zero hits from 2 dice. Why not use more dice in melee as well?

I think this is an important design consideration that I presume those "who know" are weighing carefully.
Making the outcome more predictable actually favors better players and better army design. I think in the DBM days where better players could effectively engineer a near guaranteed outcome that served to make the game less fun for the non-better player. Yes there was always the story of a 6-1 then. But a 3% chance of survival repeatedly over several key interactions effected participation in the rule set.

One of the FOG v1 challenges for say Gauls vs Romans, is the odds felt futile and everyone started referring to the Roman legion wood chipper where there was almost an endless number of Gauls would not succeed. (Yes this is slightly overstated but conveys the mood people took away). Now I know the "top men" working on V3 are aware of this piece.

Now I have heard rumors of other factors being adjusted so they are working on more than just "more dice."

Now I have heard rumors of other factors being adjusted so they are working on more than just "more dice."

For a more complete lists of proposals see the following:
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=444

It would be great if a small army (low point) option could be considered for casual/non-tournament players. Good luck with the revision!

I've been working on a fast play version of FOG for a while. It uses 300 points and uses the Ally lists for building armies. Still a work in progress and very rough. PM me if you would like more info.

I've been working on a fast play version of FOG for a while. It uses 300 points and uses the Ally lists for building armies. Still a work in progress and very rough. PM me if you would like more info.

It sounds like a good idea. The Allied lists have not been built with that in mind, but we could certainly think about doing something to help.
What size of table do you use?

At the moment, I am working on 2' x 2" with reduced options for terrain and adjustments to set-up. Most everything is the same as the base rules.

How long a game would you expect?

PS - I'm thinking we could add something like this at the end of the rules instead of the 'how to paint your army' section.

One hour and a half max.

I am using the ally lists so there is nothing else book wise a player would need.

Thank you, gentlemen! (will pm soon, berthier)
And how about a set of (pdf or actual cardboard) top-down armies as in the rulebook diagrams? See thread slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5250

berthier wrote:I've been working on a fast play version of FOG for a while. It uses 300 points and uses the Ally lists for building armies. Still a work in progress and very rough. PM me if you would like more info.

Way back in the very early FOG v1 days one of our players organized some FOG Mini. It was more like the DBM mini conversions with 400 points and min/max halved. He didn't work out details much but I think he reduced BG size, its all hazy. I am sure it is posted way back on the forum by Scrumpy. it worked well and was enjoyable. So I think you have something. I do think as you allude to in another post that you need to manage the terrain and such a bit more aggressively.

The whole point of going with 300 and using the Ally Lists is it forces the player to think about core troops and not the exotics. I have kept BG sizes the same and adjusted the terrain (max size as well as number of pieces). New players want something that lets them easily get into the game with minimal expenditure (or minimal for FOG) and finish learning games in a relatively short amount of time. FOG 300 most likely will not appeal at all to hardcore gamers but they are not the target anyway.