First Viewing - Rules

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 2:38 pm

I was a bit put off initially by the price of the rules, but when compared to the other 2 main rivals out there, the extra $$ are well worth the spending.

Superb work thanks to all involved.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:35 pm

Scrumpy wrote:I was a bit put off initially by the price of the rules, but when compared to the other 2 main rivals out there, the extra $$ are well worth the spending.

Superb work thanks to all involved.

For a cheap B*******d like you that is high praise indeeed.

Vorkosigan5 · Post by **Vorkosigan5** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:32 pm

Played my first game today. Thoroughly enjoyed myself. 100YW English (me) vs Medieval French.

I found the rules very easy to understand - no dubiety (a change after dbm!)

the game was fun to play had a good bit of action, sufficient amount of nail biting to keep the mind sharp.

All in all an excellent afternoon's gaming. Definately not the last.

Well done all at FoG - a great addition to the wargaming world!

Quintus · Post by **Quintus** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:43 am

Presentation is very good - it is very attractive and may also appeal to the Warhammer crowd, especially the youngsters.

The rules are more difficult to understand than I had expected and this might put off younger players. Time will tell.

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:46 pm

I am a long time wargamer, then miniatures player but mainly WWII and I am not a DBx player at all. I find the rules diffcult to understand what things mean and feel that a lot is open to interpretation. Perhaps if you have a DBx background the rules make sense but just diving in so to speak I find the language not exact enough. But again, that is probably by design. Once you go through the initial pain, it all makes sense sort of thing. I think its a great set of rules and that it is worth the effort to learn them. I just hope the forum guys don't get tired of newbie questions.

Without the forum I know I would be playing the game wrong and feel too that this could be a real issue for not just younger players but new players.

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:11 pm

Naah we enjoy it!

Honestly we stayed with more general language to get the principles across. If we tried to cover all details at full specifricity it would be a dry read indeed. We tried to find a decent balance between completeness adn readability.

Have fun with it

Si

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:03 am

Thanks for taking my comments in the way they were meant Shall. I just need some time to get a better grip on what is meant and how things are written. A good example is the net POA issue with spearmen. It made no sense to me and I would never have guessed that in a million years, but after someone on here explained it, it made sense. Just a few more lightbulbs to come on still : ). But I love the rules and hope to have my set of ancient rules for a long time to come.

Brian

shall · Post by **shall** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:42 am

Glad you like them.

The POAs become very natural after a while but it takes a bit of time to see all the netting out effects in them. But its nice as it cuts to what matters in a very direct route.

To be honest I have plaeyd probably 20 sets of rules over the years. It takes 4-5 games to get the hang of any of them fully and be able to then focus on the game rather than the rules.

Si

domblas · Post by **domblas** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:05 pm

just received and red the rules

great presentation and good looking rule system. I'll try it next week i hope. I always regretted the style too strcit and fanzine like of dbmx. On the other hand one big regrets is that army lists looks simplified comparing to Dbmx. I spend hours reading army lists. Fog ones are well illustrated but looks simplified in their composition. thats a regreat.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:11 pm

domblas wrote:On the other hand one big regrets is that army lists looks simplified comparing to Dbmx. I spend hours reading army lists. Fog ones are well illustrated but looks simplified in their composition. thats a regreat.

Let's just say they are streamlined compared with the DBM lists. We have tried to avoid pedantic detail for its own sake - e.g. sets of troops classified exactly the same but listed on separate lines in the list. We hope, thereby, to avoid much of the confusion as to "legality" engendered by the arcane complexity of some of the DBM lists.

The first FOG list written was the Medieval German list - just to demonstrate to myself that a usable Medieval German list is possible!

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:21 pm

One sad thing from the FoG lists is the loss of such vital troop types as the single base of Wizards with Magic daggers from the Tibetan list. I have to admit I might be wrong as I have yet to see a Tibetan list but I have a gut feeling that there will be nary a magic dagger in sight

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:06 pm

domblas wrote:
On the other hand one big regrets is that army lists looks simplified comparing to Dbmx. I spend hours reading army lists. Fog ones are well illustrated but looks simplified in their composition. thats a regreat.

I'm already spending hours reading the lists and working out new armies and only 2 have been published

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:07 pm

I also doubt we'll see the maiden guard in the Indian list:

First Viewing - Rules

fog

Re: fog

Re: fog