Clear clarifications please

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3862
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by dave_r »

gozerius wrote:Dave,
Yes, I do play FoG. I do enjoy it. My interpretations are based on a thorough reading and cross referencing of the rules. I have always provided quotations from the text to support my arguments. In fact I quote them in the order of precedence that leads me to the conclusions I have reached, along with the logic applied in reading them. For my pains I'm told that the rules don't say what I'm reading.
You very rarely provide quotations from the text to support your arguments - hence why I keep asking you to provide them!

You also very rarely listen to anything anybody else types, so I'm beginning to wonder why I bother!
Evaluator of Supremacy
gozerius
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:32 am

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by gozerius »

OK. Since I am plainly just grinding an axe about objections to things that have already been decided, I will keep my opinions that conflict with conventional wisdom to myself.
Thracians
Classical Indians
Medieval
-Germans (many flavors), Danes, Low Countries
Burgundians
In progress - Later Hungarians, Grand Moravians
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by grahambriggs »

gozerius wrote:And yet if both bases of cav hit the front base only, they would not both fight. Steeper angle, same configuration, slightly different end position, totally different outcome. Why?
"The front rank bases are the key troops at impact..."
The effect of the current interpretation is that you have created a situation where the charger can gain an advantage by charging obliquely into a semi-flank charge. Because the impact rolls more dice by contacting non-front rank bases. This is an advantage to the charger, since he can set up the charge to his benefit.
Hello gozerius, hope you are well. I won't join in on the RAW vs, interpretation debate here. It's been some while since I've had this situation occur and it's less common in v2 than v1 and it was rare enough in the latter. So it's a while since I've read through the rule.

But I can perhaps shed some light on the reason the authors wanted it to work the way that it is commonly played, as they've explained it to me in conversation. Make of it what you will.

The interations between troop types in the game are designed to give a historical effect (as perceived by the authors) when battle groups fight head to head. For example, For example, protected Impact foot, sword against protected offensive spear. Here, the IF are at an advantage at impact. If they disrupt the spear they will then have equal factors but more dice in the melee. If the spears remain steady the advantage is to the spears with a POA.

If these BGs hit head on, say three bases to three bases you'll get the range of results that the authors wanted. Essentially, that the warband should win and get a decent chance to break into the spears. They wanted to make sure that you got the right interaction, so, for example, the warband can usually wheel and charge to hit the spears head on and fight along the front rank. And the "can't wheel to reduce the number of dice at impact" and "can't contract in a restricted area" rules stop cheesy moves by the spears to just hit one base.

They were concerned though that, for example, the spears could contract into a single element wide column before the Warband can get close and so restrict the impact to 1 base. Hence, they allowed the Warband to step forward into subsequent ranks to get more dice fighting. It's probably only an extra base but 4 dice at a + are likely to do two hits, which would make the spears test on a -3 (lost impact, 1 hit per 2 bases, lost impact to impact foot) i.e. to make the unhistorical column formation no better than the nomal formation for the spears.

That's what they were trying to do (hence I suppose the FAQs); whether they achieved that in the rules is a different thing of course.
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by grahambriggs »

dave_r wrote: I'm beginning to wonder why I bother!
OK folks, form an orderly queue for this one :D
spike
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:12 pm
Location: Category 2

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by spike »

grahambriggs wrote:
dave_r wrote: I'm beginning to wonder why I bother!
OK folks, form an orderly queue for this one :D

Does anyone else think we are going wildly off topic here :roll:

- and does anyone care what Dave thinks :!:

S
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin

A fool and his money are soon elected.
Will Rogers

Pitty the fool!!!
Mr T
dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3862
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by dave_r »

spike wrote:
grahambriggs wrote:
dave_r wrote: I'm beginning to wonder why I bother!
OK folks, form an orderly queue for this one :D

Does anyone else think we are going wildly off topic here :roll:

- and does anyone care what Dave thinks :!:

S
Everybody* except you.


* but mainly out of curiosity
Evaluator of Supremacy
timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by timmy1 »

dave_r

You and I post for broadly similar reasons. No-one gives a stuff what either of us think but we are going to tell them anyway. It is for their own good even if they don't realise it...
timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by timmy1 »

S

Yes we are wildly off topic. Must be a first for a forum with wargamers on it.
bbotus
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 615
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:34 am
Location: Alaska

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by bbotus »

timmy1 wrote:S

Yes we are wildly off topic. Must be a first for a forum with wargamers on it.
Definitely has to be a first. When did wargamers ever get off topic before. :P

NOTE TO GRAHAM: I read your post on your understanding of the authors ideas with great interest. Thanks for taking the time to post it.
gozerius
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:32 am

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by gozerius »

I just realized my error. I thought the rules as published was the same as the RAW. My mistake. Won't happen again.
It is clear that the RAW means the "Rules Authors Wanted", not what they actually put in the rulebook. So we have people posting that, for example, the RAW takes precedence over the examples in the book.
I have always played using the rules in the book and made my interpretations based on the text, charts and examples provided.
Now I don't know how to play anymore because I can't trust that what is in the book is what the authors intended. And it's clear that there is no consensus that anyone without access to the authors could hope to figure it out.
Thanks.
Thracians
Classical Indians
Medieval
-Germans (many flavors), Danes, Low Countries
Burgundians
In progress - Later Hungarians, Grand Moravians
bbotus
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 615
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:34 am
Location: Alaska

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by bbotus »

It is clear that the RAW means the "Rules Authors Wanted", not what they actually put in the rulebook.
Gozerius, what do you think the bullet at the top of page 62 means? "........is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front."
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by grahambriggs »

gozerius wrote:I just realized my error. I thought the rules as published was the same as the RAW. My mistake. Won't happen again.
It is clear that the RAW means the "Rules Authors Wanted", not what they actually put in the rulebook.
Did you miss the bit where I wrote "I won't join in on the RAW vs, interpretation debate here"? I'm just trying to relay what the authors were trying to do, not what they actually did. I suspect quite a few of the v2 changes were motivated by the authors realising that in v1 they had not written what they wanted.
gozerius
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:32 am

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by gozerius »

bbotus wrote:
It is clear that the RAW means the "Rules Authors Wanted", not what they actually put in the rulebook.
Gozerius, what do you think the bullet at the top of page 62 means? "........is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front."
It means that such a charge does not inflict the penalties associated with a legal flank charge, and the normal procedure for impact combat is followed.
The normal procedure for impact combat allocates dice only to front rank bases and bases capable of support shooting. (p 98)
It also defines all charging bases that contacted the enemy as eligible to fight, and all enemy bases in contact with them are also eligible to fight. The bases are paired off so that each base fights one other enemy base. (p 97)
So bases in contact fight. If they fight, they must be front rank bases. Front rank bases use their own POAs. (p 100) POAs dependent on multiple ranks count the ranks facing the same direction. (p 100) A terrain dependent POA applies to the terrain the base is in. (p 100) A front rank base does not support shoot. (p 98) A 2nd or 3rd rank (bow armed only) support shooter behind a base in combat shoots once.(p 104)

That is the rule that was published. Nothing in there about treating each contact on a non front rank base as contacting a complete file of the same composition as the original.

As Graham said "I'm just trying to relay what the authors were trying to do, not what they actually did. I suspect quite a few of the v2 changes were motivated by the authors realising that in v1 they had not written what they wanted."

They failed.
Thracians
Classical Indians
Medieval
-Germans (many flavors), Danes, Low Countries
Burgundians
In progress - Later Hungarians, Grand Moravians
dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3862
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by dave_r »

gozerius wrote:
bbotus wrote:
It is clear that the RAW means the "Rules Authors Wanted", not what they actually put in the rulebook.
Gozerius, what do you think the bullet at the top of page 62 means? "........is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front."
It means that such a charge does not inflict the penalties associated with a legal flank charge, and the normal procedure for impact combat is followed.
The normal procedure for impact combat allocates dice only to front rank bases and bases capable of support shooting. (p 98)
It also defines all charging bases that contacted the enemy as eligible to fight, and all enemy bases in contact with them are also eligible to fight. The bases are paired off so that each base fights one other enemy base. (p 97)
So bases in contact fight. If they fight, they must be front rank bases. Front rank bases use their own POAs. (p 100) POAs dependent on multiple ranks count the ranks facing the same direction. (p 100) A terrain dependent POA applies to the terrain the base is in. (p 100) A front rank base does not support shoot. (p 98) A 2nd or 3rd rank (bow armed only) support shooter behind a base in combat shoots once.(p 104)

That is the rule that was published. Nothing in there about treating each contact on a non front rank base as contacting a complete file of the same composition as the original.

As Graham said "I'm just trying to relay what the authors were trying to do, not what they actually did. I suspect quite a few of the v2 changes were motivated by the authors realising that in v1 they had not written what they wanted."

They failed.
Its a good job they issued the FAQ's then, so people who willfully misread the rules can be corrected.
Evaluator of Supremacy
bbotus
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 615
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:34 am
Location: Alaska

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by bbotus »

Its a good job they issued the FAQ's then, so people who willfully misread the rules can be corrected
Are you talking about yourself?
gozerius
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:32 am

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by gozerius »

Don't get me started on the FAQs. I wonder how they came up with some of those answers.
The rules says X, so we'll tell people the answer is Y.

But, really...
We all want the same thing. An enjoyable game of toy soldiers. At the table all these issues seem to sort themselves out.

No More Bellyaching!!!
Thracians
Classical Indians
Medieval
-Germans (many flavors), Danes, Low Countries
Burgundians
In progress - Later Hungarians, Grand Moravians
Ryryd
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by Ryryd »

Ran into an odd Restricted Area (RA) problem today. There are three units, two Greek, one Persian. One Greek is a six stand Hoplite. The other Greek is Thracian MF (6 stands). The Persian is MF (10 stands). Everyone is two deep. The Hoplites and Persians are in contact and fighting melee. The Thracian are coming up to charge. I am going to try to draw this:

-------------PPPPppppPPPPppppPPPP
-------------PPPPppppPPPPppppPPPP
------------------------HHHhhhhHHH
TTTTttttTTTT------HHHhhhhHHH
TTTTttttTTTT

It is the Persian player`s maneuver phase. The Persian want to shift the two unengaged stands to the opposite side of the fight to get an additional overlap. Those two stands are within the RA of the Thracians. Can the Persians legally move, or must they remain and respect the RA?

The Persian player is saying that this is not "normal movement". It is feeding bases into the fight. Therefore, the RA rules do not apply. The Greek player is saying that the RA must be respected, regardless of the type of movement.
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by grahambriggs »

Ryryd wrote: Tue Dec 02, 2025 10:53 pm Ran into an odd Restricted Area (RA) problem today. There are three units, two Greek, one Persian. One Greek is a six stand Hoplite. The other Greek is Thracian MF (6 stands). The Persian is MF (10 stands). Everyone is two deep. The Hoplites and Persians are in contact and fighting melee. The Thracian are coming up to charge. I am going to try to draw this:

-------------PPPPppppPPPPppppPPPP
-------------PPPPppppPPPPppppPPPP
------------------------HHHhhhhHHH
TTTTttttTTTT------HHHhhhhHHH
TTTTttttTTTT

It is the Persian player`s maneuver phase. The Persian want to shift the two unengaged stands to the opposite side of the fight to get an additional overlap. Those two stands are within the RA of the Thracians. Can the Persians legally move, or must they remain and respect the RA?

The Persian player is saying that this is not "normal movement". It is feeding bases into the fight. Therefore, the RA rules do not apply. The Greek player is saying that the RA must be respected, regardless of the type of movement.
Yes the Persians can do this. The relevant rule is page 55 Restricted are 4th bullet "Moves by pinned battle groups can include contraction of files that are not in any restricted area. Files that are in any restricted area cannot be contracted except to feed more bases into combat."

So if the hoplites were not present the Persians could not contract to avoid the Thracians. The exception is to feed the bases into combat.
Ryryd
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by Ryryd »

Graham:
Thank you for your quick and clear response. This does raise a question that has been on my mind for some years: What, exactly, is the Restricted Area supposed to represent and simulate? I understand a Zone of Control: Ranged weapons in modern combat control areas outside of where the unit is actually located. But a 16ft pike or a thrusting spear has no ZoC.
I realize that the RA may not represent anything at all. It may simply be an extra rule to prevent "Cute" maneuvers from happening. Will you be willing to take a few moments and explain the thinking of the RA? Thanks very much.
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Clear clarifications please

Post by grahambriggs »

Ryryd wrote: Wed Dec 03, 2025 4:35 pm Graham:
Thank you for your quick and clear response. This does raise a question that has been on my mind for some years: What, exactly, is the Restricted Area supposed to represent and simulate? I understand a Zone of Control: Ranged weapons in modern combat control areas outside of where the unit is actually located. But a 16ft pike or a thrusting spear has no ZoC.
I realize that the RA may not represent anything at all. It may simply be an extra rule to prevent "Cute" maneuvers from happening. Will you be willing to take a few moments and explain the thinking of the RA? Thanks very much.
The restricted area represents the situation on the battlefield where the enemy is so close that complicated manoeuvre would lead to disaster. So consider those hoplites in the battle against the Persians. at the start of the battle they would have shields slung on their backs, helmets not yet lowered and so on. The can move faster, so can make second moves. As they come into arrow range -6MU-, they deploy and overlap their shields and lower their helmets over their face to give maximum protection from the arrows. So they are moving more slowly which is represented by only having single moves. When they get within the restricted area, the front ranks lower their spears, the back ranks prepare to push or whatever they do. At this stage it would be folly to say "you know what, let's contract the whole formation". Even if they had a drill for that, it would make them much more vulnerable to the arrows. Just not going to happen.

There's also the game mechanism that's needed in an alternate move system you need something to stop cute gameplay up close.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”