Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
)
. So on the whole I definitely agree with you. (I don't miss the individual figure removal and too many of my troops are still based including a mix of single figure stands to allow for that as well as for forming the devastating wedge formation . I like to think of FoG as the type of Ancients wargame I played for the first 20 years of my wargaming life but with 21st century rule mechanisms.ShrubMiK wrote:When I first saw FoG my initial reaction was that it was going back from DBx to something that felt somewhat similar to 7th edition, but simpler. Which, IMO, was a compliment.
That is not that different to the 650 point on a 5 by 3 with 2 1/2 hours a game format I have used at a number of one day UK events. The only rules I changed are that each player gets a compulsary terrain piece plus 1-3 optional terrain and that compulsary terrain cannot be discarded because it won't fit. No changes to deployment distances and yes that does mean you can charge enemy skirmishers with your light horse on turn 1.DavidT wrote:We have played a number of 400 AP FoG competitions in Ireland where we are trying to fit 3 games into 1 day (akin to the old DBM200 system).
We halve the points costs of generals, with a maximum of 3 generals, and halve the minima and maxima of troop types in a list - however, you can always field one minimum size BG of any troop type.
Armies usually work out at 6 to 8 BGs and we play on 4 feet wide by 3 feet deep tables, with deployment reduced to 7" and 10" from the base edge.
They work quite well.
I recall some manufacturers started making left handed figures so that both ends of the line only got the 1 figure shielded overlap....ShrubMiK wrote:Well a bit of both. I distinctly remember 1 overlapping figure on shielded and 3 on unshielded side and it was firmly in the forefront of my mind. One of those details that get seared into your memory...
But yes I was thinking more of pre-7th than 7th though, with the individual figure removal. And you may be right about only one figure overlapping to each side, I just had a quick skim of the rulebook but can't see it stated clearly. (That too is classic WRG
When I first saw FoG my initial reaction was that it was going back from DBx to something that felt somewhat similar to 7th edition, but simpler. Which, IMO, was a compliment.
I remember reading that some Chinese units were formed with left and right handed people so as not to present a shieldless flank. But that may just have been some devious type trying to justify his left/right handed figures!I recall some manufacturers started making left handed figures so that both ends of the line only got the 1 figure shielded overlap....
I think that you can get a decent game with a 600 point starter army on a 4 by 3 table. 5 by 3 is plenty of space for 650 points, 4 by 3 might be a little tight for 600 but it should work.DavidT wrote:Other reasons for playing 400 AP games was limited space (it is easier to fit in a larger numbe of 4'x3' tables) and limited player experience which meant that games generally completed because of the small army sizes. However, as players over here are becoming more experienced with the rules, we have been discussing playing 600 AP or even 650 AP games. If we can fit the tables in, we may give Hammy's system a go.
:Ograhambriggs wrote: I recall some manufacturers started making left handed figures so that both ends of the line only got the 1 figure shielded overlap....
Stairways would would be defended from the top, so anticlockwise looking down. (for right handers.) Obviously not for these porridge eating freaks.ShrubMiK wrote:I suppose there is some justification for this sort of thing. Falkland Palace in Fife, Scotland has spiral staircases which go round the opposite way to the usual. The reason supposedly was that the owning family had a high incidence of left handedness, and when you are defending from higher up staircase it is easier if your weapon hand is at the outside of the spiral not the inside.
(I wasn't entirely convinced by that explanation...in a left-hander vs. right-hander confrontation in a spiral staircase, whichever way the spiral goes they are either both going to be advantaged or disadvantaged.)
'Tis true. I have actually got some combat experience fighting up and down spiral staircases. Almost all the stiarcases in the castle I fought in were the wrong way and it was actually quite hard to defend if you were right handed.philqw78 wrote:Stairways would would be defended from the top, so anticlockwise looking down. (for right handers.) Obviously not for these porridge eating freaks.ShrubMiK wrote:I suppose there is some justification for this sort of thing. Falkland Palace in Fife, Scotland has spiral staircases which go round the opposite way to the usual. The reason supposedly was that the owning family had a high incidence of left handedness, and when you are defending from higher up staircase it is easier if your weapon hand is at the outside of the spiral not the inside.
(I wasn't entirely convinced by that explanation...in a left-hander vs. right-hander confrontation in a spiral staircase, whichever way the spiral goes they are either both going to be advantaged or disadvantaged.)
I have nothing against people that eat porridge, just freaks
Obviously they were designed to defend vs. Dragon delivered, air-borne, assault troops.hammy wrote:'Tis true. I have actually got some combat experience fighting up and down spiral staircases. Almost all the stiarcases in the castle I fought in were the wrong way and it was actually quite hard to defend if you were right handed.
