Slitherine

neilhammond wrote:It's not like DBM. On first reading there is a superficial resemblance to WRG 6th/7th (because of the reintroduction of units & weapons/armour classes) but this is not the case when you play the game.

I cetainly enjoy the game, and on balance prefer it to DBM.

Agree with all points. Much superior game than 7th. I never played DBM so I can't say. That game did not appeal to me at all.

Lol! Threadomancy.

maxigoth wrote:Hello from Australia.

I have been reading the posts on FoG and look forward to its release. I have not played Ancient wargames for quite some time. Previously I played 6th edition WRG and a few games against Neil Hammond using 7th edition WRG.

If any more specific date is available for release in Australia please advise; I believe it is to be some time in February?

Regards

The Ancient and Medieval version of FoG is already released (indeed there is talk of a 2nd edition at some stage). I know it is available in Australia but I'm not sure where.

grahambriggs wrote:The Ancient and Medieval version of FoG is already released (indeed there is talk of a 2nd edition at some stage). I know it is available in Australia but I'm not sure where.

Check the post above yours Graham. The original poster, like the euromillions winner, may have shuffled off this mortal coil between posting and now.

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:The Ancient and Medieval version of FoG is already released (indeed there is talk of a 2nd edition at some stage). I know it is available in Australia but I'm not sure where.

Check the post above yours Graham. The original poster, like the euromillions winner, may have shuffled off this mortal coil between posting and now.

Ah. Zombie thread I see. Cheers Phil. See you at the weekend.

Next up for discussion, a posting by Boyd from Ed Allen's Stanford listserv DBM mailing list...

Using which alias and espousing which weird theory...?

OMG ! I was on that ! I'd forgotten all about it.....best

Skullzgrinda wrote:
Agree with all points. Much superior game than 7th. I never played DBM so I can't say. That game did not appeal to me at all.

Not so sure that Fog is "much superior" - the IGOUGO is IMO inferior, as is the command structure. Although there is no doubt that the rules are clearer. Certainly one issue of 7th was that it was mostly played with lists written for 6th, which was a very different system. On balance, I'd say that 7th was better, however what isn't debatable is that 7th was more ambitious by far. 7th included aspects that FOG does not, and that is to the detriment of FOG. It also included mixed morale units, which are a very good mechanism, especially for irregular armies.

I disagree on 7th. It was overly, overly layerd and complicated and taht was after it was peeled back and cleaned up.

It was great for its time, but it reached a zenith and I think the various systems that came after it DBx, FoG, the variable initiative game that my mind is blanking on, strategos all have built in new directions.

It is a matter of flavor and taste as well. What do you want simplify because you can't model everything. Every rule author has to weigh choices.

Dan

I agree. 7th largely 'forced' me out of figure gaming until DBM 3.0.

azrael86 wrote: however what isn't debatable is that 7th was more ambitious by far. 7th included aspects that FOG does not, and that is to the detriment of FOG. It also included mixed morale units, which are a very good mechanism, especially for irregular armies.

it contained loads of sh*t. Stuff that complicated the rules for no real advantage. Do you actually use the orders properly when playing a game? I doubt anybody does. Mixed moarale and armour in the same unit. To what gain. They were very ambitious rules. They were IMO better than 6th. But their playability was/is awful.

Is it any good ?

Well, as I said to someone last night, my experiences of WRG 6/7 killed my interest in the period totally. and DBA, DBM and DBMM simply passed me by as I turned my back on the period for 30 years. (I am quite enamoured of HoTT though).

FoG is the first ancient set to get me even remotely interested in the period and I find it a lot of fun.

It has problems with ahistorical matchups, but this is only to be expected from a set of rules intended to cover 4500 years of military conflict.

guthroth wrote:It has problems with ahistorical matchups, but this is only to be expected from a set of rules intended to cover 4500 years of military conflict.

It is intended to cover warfare in each sub-period during that long time-span. Hence the structure of the army list books.

If people insist on playing ahistorical matchups they have only themselves to blame if the results are ahistorical (inevitably).

rbodleyscott wrote:

guthroth wrote:It has problems with ahistorical matchups, but this is only to be expected from a set of rules intended to cover 4500 years of military conflict.

It is intended to cover warfare in each sub-period during that long time-span. Hence the structure of the army list books.

If people insist on playing ahistorical matchups they have only themselves to blame if the results are ahistorical (inevitably).

There is a lot of people that just want put their soldiers on the table and role dices, they don´t have any interest to get an historical results.


Maybe the same people who will point the finger and call you an extremist, if you want to get some historical flavour in your games.

rbodleyscott wrote:

guthroth wrote:It has problems with ahistorical matchups, but this is only to be expected from a set of rules intended to cover 4500 years of military conflict.

It is intended to cover warfare in each sub-period during that long time-span. Hence the structure of the army list books.

If people insist on playing ahistorical matchups they have only themselves to blame if the results are ahistorical (inevitably).

I accept that, and that is why I will not enter 'open' comps.

Pete