Slitherine

david53 wrote:

tgreene wrote: Well you have proven my point for me here. Tournament or competition style players will gravitate towards FoG while those who are looking for a bit of fun and some good camraderie wilill gravitate towards something like La Salle. I guess I am not a tournament or competition style player and therefore FoG is not my style of rules. Which doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it, it's just not my cup of tea.

TG

With all due respect you've a bit off a check coming on here and saying if you want camraderie and good fun you'd stay away from FOG< now many fog games again have you had?

TBH I think some people are bending over backwards to help you, considering they must be unfriendly as they play FOG.

I can't figure out what you want on here the rules are'nt going to be changed for you you don't like them so why play them no ones forcing you

As someone elese on here said you want to play one way and the majority of people on here want to play another.

I'm sure I would'nt go on the MM site and say change the rules I don't like them you lot arn't fun or friendly like FOG players and expect them to help me. if I did I could tell you they would'nt try and help me like some furiendly FOG players are doing with you.............

I never said anyone on this forum was unfriendly. I feel that you all were very friendly and helpful. I also did thank everyone in an earlier post for helping to clarify the rules question I asked. Some seem to be taking my comments on the FoG rules personally. I had posted my comments in hopes of engendering some constructive discussion about what I perceived as a flaw in the rules. It seems I am wrong and FoG is perfect. Who am I to disagree? I wouldn't want to seem unfriendly after all. I do thank those of you who made an effort to explain your perspectives about the rules about restrictive areas. I have enjoyed this discussion and I hope no one will take anything I posted personally, it was not meant in that way.

Happy Gaming,

TG

david53 wrote:I'm sure I would'nt go on the MM site and say change the rules

But Dave, most of us would like some changes to FoG, most of us disagree what they are, most of us post here because we have strong opinions. You are obviously a facist Dave trying to stifle the poor minorities like TGreene who have not yet been assimilated. And, who, by the way, will have made a childhood dream come true if her first name is Teresa.

It's all off topic now, as Hammy said.

My Mongols love the existing 90 degree and full move......it's very generous, but, please don't change that one.

I don't know if the name is Teresa but Alaska.

I'm out of here.

RobKhan

tgreene wrote: I had posted my comments in hopes of engendering some constructive discussion about what I perceived as a flaw in the rules.

No you didn't. That would have been saying something like " I think the restricted zone should be more restrictive, in that most of the BG should have to remain in front of the pinning BG."
What you have done is implied that everyone who plays this rule correctly is unsportsmanlike, and the type of gamer who tends to "take the enjoyment out of the thing for the rest of us".
You have made comments like "FoG becomes just another set of gimmicky tournament play rules with about as much relevance for historically accurate ancients table top wargaming as a game of Yahtzee". That hardly qualifies as constructive discussion.
All because you don't think a rule should be played the way it is written.

tgreene wrote: It seems I am wrong and FoG is perfect. TG

Well your attitude seems to be that you are right and everyone else is wrong. But FOG is not perfect; I doubt anyone on here thinks it is. For example, the other issue raised on this post about a BG pinned by multiple BGs has been noted as a problem by a few people. However, it is a relatively minor problem that is easily avoided once you are aware of it and I suspect that there is no easy solution that doesn't actually cause more problems.

I with Teresa on this one. People are allowed to express there own opinions of FOG, good or bad. So come on guys relax.

ps. TGreene If your name isnt Teresa please change it forthwith.

MatthewP wrote: People are allowed to express there own opinions of FOG, good or bad. So come on guys relax.

Yes of course they are, but what is not on is saying that players are unsportsmanlike or unreasonable from playing a rule the way it is clearly written and intended, just because you don't agree with that rule. And that is what has happened here.

MatthewP wrote:I with Teresa on this one. People are allowed to express there own opinions of FOG, good or bad. So come on guys relax.

ps. TGreene If your name isnt Teresa please change it forthwith.

Thats cool then I'll do as he did I think your unfriendly and unsportsmanlike cause you play fog, true or not did he or did he not say that.

Of course you can argue that parts of FOG are wrong but I would never call people unfriendly or some form of cheats cause they use the rule as written. I think some people are too friendly on here bending over backwards to help people who for some reason don't like FOG as written and want it changed as such.

david53 wrote:

MatthewP wrote:I with Teresa on this one. People are allowed to express there own opinions of FOG, good or bad. So come on guys relax.

ps. TGreene If your name isnt Teresa please change it forthwith.

Thats cool then I'll do as he did I think your unfriendly and unsportsmanlike cause you play fog, true or not did he or did he not say that.

Of course you can argue that parts of FOG are wrong but I would never call people unfriendly or some form of cheats cause they use the rule as written. I think some people are too friendly on here bending over backwards to help people who for some reason don't like FOG as written and want it changed as such.

Well i used to play 7th edition tournaments and some DBM tournaments.
Now with FOg i have played both tournaments and historical battles.
The big difference i feel while playing FOG is that people are more relaxed and less 'he does not know the rules i will not tell him he can shoot at me' and much much much less agruements.

So i am happy with FOG.

Whenyou play a rule you have to accept every aspect of it, even if you find things strange, no rules are perfect, and guys it is a GAME.

tgreene wrote: Another example is the aforementioned rule regarding bad going (Sam doesn't call it that I use the term since we are all familiar with it from DBM/A/X etc.) Basically if anybody is in bad going then all units fighting in a melee get the penalty whether or not they themselves are actually in bad going if they would normally be handicapped by fighting in bad going.
TG

I have jsut gotten Lasalle and in general I like Mustafa looking at many problems afresh. He also does a better job of deciding what scale the battle is. Are you a corps/division commander or an army commander. Too many games want you to be both.

However I think the above example on terrain is an exmaple of an author makign a choiec and not demonstrably better either way. There are historical examples of troops meeting some one emerging from inhibiting terrain. And troops inhibited suffer, while the folks waiting gleefully slaughtered.

But surely ther are opposite examples where troops meanign to stay out of terrain got entangled.

I think both are fine choices, neither decision is bad.

Jilu wrote: Now with FOg i have played both tournaments and historical battles.
The big difference i feel while playing FOG is that people are more relaxed and less 'he does not know the rules i will not tell him he can shoot at me' and much much much less agruements.

So i am happy with FOG.

Well said. The other point for FOG, is bad rules gamers, with fair strategy get to go down fighting. Some games rules mastery over-rides strategy nearly 100%. I was doing a teaching game of FOg to an experienced gamer and while he asked how to make moves, his strategy was pretty darn sound and it made it a game.

Well said. The other point for FOG, is bad rules gamers, with fair strategy get to go down fighting. Some games rules mastery over-rides strategy nearly 100%. I was doing a teaching game of FOg to an experienced gamer and while he asked how to make moves, his strategy was pretty darn sound and it made it a game.

This was one of the primary objectives when we started the design. We will always try to favour good generalship over rule mongering. Now of course with any ruleset you can't totllay avoid the latter and its fair enough for people to play the rules as written (and FAQed) and our lovely job to tidy things up here and there where we don't like it.

This forum has been a big breakthrough in the latter and we will continue to listen and react. For my part, strong opinions politely expressed are totally welcome and inform us a great deal with ideas as we move our thinking forward. And you have to admit we have created an unusual set of rules where the worst role to get is often a 3!

Keep having fun witht he good bits; and keep posting the fair queries and challenges.

Si