Slitherine

Man this thing is hard to read... seems like nothing is where it should be, and the index isnt of any real help.

Thanks for the page reference, I probably wouldnt of found it if not for that.

There is an expanded index available here http://www.fieldofglory.com/onthefieldofglory.php

Some wargamers like rules that are written in a "narrative" style, while others prefer a "tech manual" format. Personally, I have never had any trouble with the organization or layout in FoG, but then I am quite comfortable with a "narrative" style. The online expanded index is a big improvement, though.

Cheers,
Scott

Omar wrote:

So, shooting, melee, whatever.. if you take a single hit, you make a death roll. Got it.
----------------
For shooting, or a melee you did not lose, you get +2 on the roll.
So you only need to make a death roll if you *lose* a melee, or take 3 or more hits from shooting or in melee.

pyruse wrote:Omar wrote:

So, shooting, melee, whatever.. if you take a single hit, you make a death roll. Got it.
----------------
For shooting, or a melee you did not lose, you get +2 on the roll.
So you only need to make a death roll if you *lose* a melee, or take 3 or more hits from shooting or in melee.

Wait... you contradicted yourself there.

Am I right that if you take any hits in a melee, you make a death roll. Should you win, you get +2 to the roll, correct?

ars_belli wrote:Some wargamers like rules that are written in a "narrative" style, while others prefer a "tech manual" format. Personally, I have never had any trouble with the organization or layout in FoG, but then I am quite comfortable with a "narrative" style. The online expanded index is a big improvement, though.

Cheers,
Scott

Maybe its me, I dont see it as either. But your right, I do tend to do well with a more technical format. Things that need to be known at the same time should all be together. Like I just read last night what is considered a shock troop. Had to go all the way into the appendix to find that, no reference from the section about shock troops having to charge referencing it.

Not trying to sound like I am complaining, just not used to it. Historical wargaming is new to me, so I am not sure if this is typical for the hobby or not. Used to games having all the info for a situation or phase right there, with exceptions or other special rules elsewhere. The layout is somewhat confusing for me.

ars_belli wrote:Some wargamers like rules that are written in a "narrative" style, while others prefer a "tech manual" format. Personally, I have never had any trouble with the organization or layout in FoG, but then I am quite comfortable with a "narrative" style. The online expanded index is a big improvement, though.

Cheers,
Scott

I don't know if its the WWII miniatures rules I am used to or my wargaming past but I am used to the tech manual style. Narrative style is a mystery to me. Also I don't like DBx and don't know the rules so that may have been part of my difficulty as well.

I struggled reading FOG and remember the first time often times saying " What the *&^% do they mean by this?" If it was not for this forum I would have either continued to play the game incorrectly or have sold the rules and tried something else.

But I admit as well that the expanded index rocks and I have used it on a number of occasions that saved us time flipping pages during a game

Brian

Omar wrote:

ars_belli wrote:Some wargamers like rules that are written in a "narrative" style, while others prefer a "tech manual" format. Personally, I have never had any trouble with the organization or layout in FoG, but then I am quite comfortable with a "narrative" style. The online expanded index is a big improvement, though.

Cheers,
Scott

Maybe its me, I dont see it as either. But your right, I do tend to do well with a more technical format. Things that need to be known at the same time should all be together. Like I just read last night what is considered a shock troop. Had to go all the way into the appendix to find that, no reference from the section about shock troops having to charge referencing it.

Not trying to sound like I am complaining, just not used to it. Historical wargaming is new to me, so I am not sure if this is typical for the hobby or not. Used to games having all the info for a situation or phase right there, with exceptions or other special rules elsewhere. The layout is somewhat confusing for me.

Omar I have a long wargaming (boardgame) background and I must admit I too like it when everything is in one section rather than a little here and a little there. But I feel that the guys who wrote the rules know what they are doing and wrote it in the best way.

Brian

Where is this expanded online index? I checked the place where the Errata and QRS are found, but didn't see it there...

***edit***

Doh, never mind. "Players Index" sounds like an index of players; perhaps that could be labeled more clearly?

possum wrote:Where is this expanded online index? I checked the place where the Errata and QRS are found, but didn't see it there...

Serious?

Perhaps the name is part of the confusion, its the index that is found in the same folder. But compared with the rules index it is expanded.

Or maybe I missed another expanded index

Brian

Omar wrote:

pyruse wrote:Omar wrote:

So, shooting, melee, whatever.. if you take a single hit, you make a death roll. Got it.
----------------
For shooting, or a melee you did not lose, you get +2 on the roll.
So you only need to make a death roll if you *lose* a melee, or take 3 or more hits from shooting or in melee.

Wait... you contradicted yourself there.

Am I right that if you take any hits in a melee, you make a death roll. Should you win, you get +2 to the roll, correct?

To clarify: each BG owes a death throw when it takes hits. The BG gets to add +2 to the throw in two circumstances. 1) when the hits are from shooting; 2) if it did not lose its close combat.

Winning melees is nice; not losing them is key.

Marc

babyshark wrote:

Omar wrote:

pyruse wrote:Omar wrote:

So, shooting, melee, whatever.. if you take a single hit, you make a death roll. Got it.
----------------
For shooting, or a melee you did not lose, you get +2 on the roll.
So you only need to make a death roll if you *lose* a melee, or take 3 or more hits from shooting or in melee.

Wait... you contradicted yourself there.

Am I right that if you take any hits in a melee, you make a death roll. Should you win, you get +2 to the roll, correct?

To clarify: each BG owes a death throw when it takes hits. The BG gets to add +2 to the throw in two circumstances. 1) when the hits are from shooting; 2) if it did not lose its close combat.

Winning melees is nice; not losing them is key.

Marc

To further clarify if you take any hits from shooting or close combat then you should take a death roll.

If, however the hits are from shooting or as a result of a close combat you did not lose then there may well be no point in the roll as with a +2 it requires 3 hits to cause a base loss (unless elephants or other unusual troops are involved in which case you can have a +3 modifier to the roll).

BrianC wrote:Omar I have a long wargaming (boardgame) background and I must admit I too like it when everything is in one section rather than a little here and a little there. But I feel that the guys who wrote the rules know what they are doing and wrote it in the best way.

Brian

Eh, dont know about that. Being that this is my first push into historical (in any age) I have no real first hand experience, but from talking with older wargamers, the attitude is that you have a few people who write things a certain way, and the books reflect that. Its not right (or wrong) its just their way, and people are hesitant to change that 'tradition'. Personally, I disagree, I am having fits with the layout and the writing style (I want to read the rules to a game, not a story that I have to keep flipping back and forth to put the pieces together on my own), but it reads easier than other games I have looked at..


Ok, more questions. This one on how to set up a game:

Again, new player, trying to make sure I am reading this all right.

Order of March is your army, up to the points allowed for the game, broken into 4 groups of battle groups to be deployed as evenly as possible. You also use the Pre-Battle Initiative Modifiers table to figure out your Pre-Battle Initiative.

When setting up terrain, you pick a type of field based on the two armies playing. The player with Initiative picks one available to the two armies. You then go down the list and pick terrain. Do you start with the 2 compulsory pieces? You pick one, opponent picks the other (assuming you have Initiative). You then pick 2-4 pieces, then your opponent does, not going over the maximum number of the various types allowed.

So, at that point you should have a pile of various terrain types sitting in a pile. You then use the Terrain pacing sequence to place it all.

With Normal and Large sized terrain pieces, is that just based on whats available? Say, you have a field that fits the large and it’s the only field your club has, it will count as two no matter what. That’s how I am reading it.

I can see a real advantage to pre-arranged battle-maps.


Do they produce 'historical scenarios'? As in, I know some historical battles were not even, but would still be fun to play.

hammy wrote:

babyshark wrote: To clarify: each BG owes a death throw when it takes hits. The BG gets to add +2 to the throw in two circumstances. 1) when the hits are from shooting; 2) if it did not lose its close combat.

Winning melees is nice; not losing them is key.

Marc

To further clarify if you take any hits from shooting or close combat then you should take a death roll.

If, however the hits are from shooting or as a result of a close combat you did not lose then there may well be no point in the roll as with a +2 it requires 3 hits to cause a base loss (unless elephants or other unusual troops are involved in which case you can have a +3 modifier to the roll).

Thanks, that info helps!

Another question about POA's.

Lets say you have two units fighting each other, each with a POA of +. Does that mean they wash or do both roll per a POA of +?

+ v's + cancels out to evens

philqw78 wrote:+ v's + cancels out to evens

Ok, so ++ vs + would turn into + vs ~

How about + vs -? ~ vs --?

Or is it just when they are equal?

How about + vs -?

turns into ++ against --

philqw78 wrote:

How about + vs -?

turns into ++ against --

Ok, I am reading that in the rules.. but it still just doesnt make sense.

I dont get how ++ vs + will turn into + vs -. Seems like it should go to + vs ~ (No POA).

They spell it out, it just doesnt make any sense.

Remembered one more from this weekend.

I had a unit of Light Horse that had broken and fled from melee. As they were falling back, another unit of cav was in the way. A half-base shift was not enough to avoid them.

What happens? The half-base shift is allowed for fleeing BGs, correct? What if its not enough (in this case, I think it was a full base)?

Reading, am I right to think that I would just move the bases of the cav to allow the LH to be there, and that would make them disordered. The following round, the LH would continue to flee, and the Cav would be ordered again? Thats what the 6th part on p48 seems to imply, but it doesnt say that LH can move through Cav, so I am confused.

If thats the case, it would of been a good idea for him to charge the cav who are disordered as a result, as that improves the odds of melee?

Edit: You know, sitting here reading, I am answering my own questions. They have to be Fragmented to be in trouble if charged, Disrupted doesnt hurt them (p61). Not sure about disordered, or if thats what they would be if the LH were moving through them (still not sure how that works).

Edit2: Ok, they move like they are evading (p100), though I need to review the Evade rules to see how this applies.