Change to FoG Game design - Are we stuck in a time warp?

[GuglielmoMarlia]

There is nothing to stop people using less than 600 points.
....
The rules also also seems to work fine for this size as well, although I tweaked a few things...

I would be happy to find in FoG/2 a quick list of recommendations (table size/terrain/minima/etc.) for 400 points and 600 points games.
Rgds/Guglielmo

[hammy]

There is nothing to stop people using less than 600 points.
....
The rules also also seems to work fine for this size as well, although I tweaked a few things...

I would be happy to find in FoG/2 a quick list of recommendations (table size/terrain/minima/etc.) for 400 points and 600 points games.
Rgds/Guglielmo

For a 600 point game the only thing you really need to change is the table size. Use a 1.5m by 90cm or 5 by 3 table. You then need a rule to stop people choosing maximum sized compulsary terrain and hoping it has to be discarded because you cannot possibly fit it more than 8 MU from the edge and still in one half.

[GuglielmoMarlia]

...
For a 600 point game the only thing you really need to change is the table size. ...You then need a rule to stop people ...

As they are going to be rules for competitions, I'd rather have them officially carved in stone .
Gug

[hammy]

...
For a 600 point game the only thing you really need to change is the table size. ...You then need a rule to stop people ...

As they are going to be rules for competitions, I'd rather have them officially carved in stone .
Gug

But most of the rules for competitions are not that carved in stone

I do take your point. People seem to think that the game can only be played at 800-1000 points on a 6 by 4 table with even numbers of points each side which is plainly not the case.

There have been tournaments with lower point totals which worked well. There have been several comps now where players did not have the same size forces in each game and amazingly they worked well too. The idea of a tournament where some tables were 7' wide, some 6' and some 5' has I think yet to see the light of day but its time will come of that I am sure.

[azrael86]

So probably not then. A pity, as there would seem to be an opportunity somewhere to offer a game without a 100 page rulebook that might engage more youngsters who presently end up in warhammer.

A friend of mine who was curious about how I played with the miniatures asked me to prepare a game for her to try it. When she saw the rulebook and the perspective of at least an hour of explanations, she thought it might not be such a good idea to give it a try. I also think that a simplified versions would really be helpful to explain to newcomers.

By the way, Warhammer is not as simple as it might seem if you add all the suplements, but it is a game with basic rules and some advanced and it really helps to get into it that way.

Exactly, we shouldn't mistake a lack of interest for an inability to handle complexity. D&D provides the best model - very easy to start with, both financially and conceptually -easily learnt by 10 or 11 year olds.

[DavidT]

D&D provides the best model - very easy to start with, both financially and conceptually -easily learnt by 10 or 11 year olds.

I take it you havn't tried D&D 4th Edition then?

[Polkovnik]

For a 600 point game the only thing you really need to change is the table size. Use a 1.5m by 90cm or 5 by 3 table. You then need a rule to stop people choosing maximum sized compulsary terrain and hoping it has to be discarded because you cannot possibly fit it more than 8 MU from the edge and still in one half.

Surely if one wants to minimise terrain it would be better to take a minimum sized piece, rather than take a large piece and hope for the 1 in 3 chance (5 or 6 on the placement dice) of it being discarded ?
I don't think this rule is necessary. In fact, I think that on a 5 by 3 table, large compulsory peices should not be allowed, in addition to reducing the number of terrain choices to 2-3 per player. This would bring the amount of terrain roughly into line with the amount on a 6 by 4 table using the terrain placement rules in the book.

[hoodlum]

So probably not then. A pity, as there would seem to be an opportunity somewhere to offer a game without a 100 page rulebook that might engage more youngsters who presently end up in warhammer.

A friend of mine who was curious about how I played with the miniatures asked me to prepare a game for her to try it. When she saw the rulebook and the perspective of at least an hour of explanations, she thought it might not be such a good idea to give it a try. I also think that a simplified versions would really be helpful to explain to newcomers.

By the way, Warhammer is not as simple as it might seem if you add all the suplements, but it is a game with basic rules and some advanced and it really helps to get into it that way.

THere are two reasons behind raising this post is that in my club I have seen a large drop off of players keen to play FoG at the 800 point level - particularly open comps - and those that were once stalwarts of the ancients brigade preferring to play FoW over FoG. a lot of feed back is that they don't want to spend four hours playing the game so we ned to go for something shorter. Another reason is the introduction of a new player to the club and to FoG and I am starting to appreicate how long it takes to teach someone how to play - last weekend we had a mini game on half the table with 6 units a piece.

It would be useful if we had a MIST game that w could be used to bring new players in and revitalise tired players.

[GuglielmoMarlia]

.... have seen a large drop off of players keen to play FoG...they don't want to spend four hours playing the game ....

I fully understand that problem. when we play at the club the evenings during the week it's hard to complete a game and be in good shape at work the morning after .
I'm really looking forward to my first competition 650 points in Cannes next February.
GM

[ethan]

I actually have some sympathy with this view, the long running trend I have seen in what I would broadly consider wargaming has been towards faster and more "playable" games. I am not sure this is the right move for FoG 2.0 - too radical a change but probably something to consider for the future.

What I wouldn't look towards is making the game "smaller" to do this, I would look to make the game faster. This would probably mean the elimination of substantial amounds of redeployment options, perhaps narrowing the table, substantial changes in skirmishing to make it useful but not time consuming, etc.

Imagine if we roughly deployed the speed of all units making march moves (and still let them make two with a general) that would let HF cover 12MUs on their first move - that alone could go some ways to speeding up the game.

[Strategos69]

I see this post more as an advice to create a new game in the future than rather move FoG towards that. I am definetely ok with FoG regarding game time. My only concern is how to introduce it to new people without making it uninteresting (or spending an hour explaining it). I have tried games with 6 BG per side and it is not interesting to play. That is why the 12 elements of DBA worked, because people have several options and you don't have to move many miniatures. Certainly what is being asked here is not easy at all, even more difficult than creating FoG itself.

[GuglielmoMarlia]

... have tried games with 6 BG per side and it is not interesting to play...

I think that a 400 points FoG game, still including 6-8 BG, is fast and interesting. Besides, with only 1 General, taking correct decisions is critical.
Rgds/GM

[azrael86]

I see this post more as an advice to create a new game in the future than rather move FoG towards that. I am definetely ok with FoG regarding game time. My only concern is how to introduce it to new people without making it uninteresting (or spending an hour explaining it). I have tried games with 6 BG per side and it is not interesting to play. That is why the 12 elements of DBA worked, because people have several options and you don't have to move many miniatures. Certainly what is being asked here is not easy at all, even more difficult than creating FoG itself.

Agreed. It would be interesting to see whether 'MIST' as Hammy has now christened it, could find favour as a complementary ruleset, in particular whether any figure companies would be prepared to help out - my concept here is that you would end up with a packaged product, simple rulset including lists, RMA pack to match, and priced very aggressively.

Suppose the game was based around (say) 16-20 bases, with rules and costing £25 a pack?

[david53]

complementary ruleset, in particular whether any figure companies would be prepared to help out - my concept here is that you would end up with a packaged product, simple rulset including lists, RMA pack to match, and priced very aggressively.

Suppose the game was based around (say) 16-20 bases, with rules and costing £25 a pack?

Sorry think you have your price wrong £25 priced as aggressively compared to what the same price as FOG backed up by Osprey doing all those nice pics. You should look towards MM if you want a comparable pricecheck thiers IIRC is £14.00

[philqw78]

You should look towards MM if you want a comparable pricecheck thiers IIRC is £14.00

MM doesn't come with figures Dave. And £25 woould be extremely cheap for a starter army and rules.

[Strategos69]

Suppose the game was based around (say) 16-20 bases, with rules and costing £25 a pack?

Definetely that is a good idea! When I started with Ancients I convinced a bunch of people to play DBA (cheap, translated rules circulated easily) and I remember they were around six or eight who bought a DBA army. The problem then was that DBA did not include bases to to glue them onto and finally no one based them (one of them at least painted some of them). In FoW, smart people, things are easy (including the bases, for example) and they have lots of players. Certainly something to learn about.

Another point I never understood was why, having the support of Osprey, the companion books did not turn into something more like the ones from Battlefront or Warhammer Ancients, with a more detailed historical introduction, more miniatures, some painting tips, a couple of battles, etc. I think people would have bought them even if they were not into FoG.

[Strategos69]

You should look towards MM if you want a comparable pricecheck thiers IIRC is £14.00

MM doesn't come with figures Dave. And £25 woould be extremely cheap for a starter army and rules.

That reminds me that Rackham gave for free a subset of their ruleset with every single miniature you bought from them. That allowed people to play a small game from the very beginning. And in Infinity, Corvus Belli are releasing the rules for free in their website and people are still buying their books. I would think of this game as a simple, short and interesting game that will create people more interest in FoG.

[batesmotel]

DBA works well and elegantly because it was designed to be simple from the start. The various editions of DBM and DBMM have all suffered in terms of complexity and awkward mechanisms from trying to pile detail on top of a system that worked much better without it. Compare the two scales of DBR for a system where the small and the larger versions work better because they were developed to together but the small scale (I forget what it's called) certainly isn't as simple as DBA. FoG was developed as a more complex game from the start (and with the benefit of lessons learned from DBM) and hence seems to me to work much more cleanly as a 3-4 hour larger army game than DBM ever really did (and probably than 'MM does judging by what gets posted on their Yahoo group). So scaling down FoG to get a DBA equivalent is likely to end up with something that doesn't really work. At the moment the best bet might well be to start new players with DBA and then if they want more, maybe proceed to 600-650 point games with FoG.

Basic Impetus and Impetus look like they do attempt to address both the simple and more complex ends of the scale with essentially one rule set. I haven't played them so don't know how well it succeeds at that but that might be one way to go for someone trying to get people into Ancients where full scale FoG looks to be more than they want..

Chris

[azrael86]

D&D provides the best model - very easy to start with, both financially and conceptually -easily learnt by 10 or 11 year olds.

I take it you havn't tried D&D 4th Edition then?

If it ain't broke - 2nd Edition is fine by me, and it seems that the market agrees - 2nd edn PC adaptations of D&D were way more successful than 3rd edn, is there even a 4th out yet?

[azrael86]

You should look towards MM if you want a comparable pricecheck thiers IIRC is £14.00

MM doesn't come with figures Dave. And £25 would be extremely cheap for a starter army and rules.

Indeed. It's something that the figure manufacturers should have a think about - of the people buying figures - how many of them are under 30?