Slitherine

With points values, although the main feedback was related to Cavalry costs, the values have to be considered as a whole and in relation to all of the changes. For example, if you change the Cavalry cost, is the cost of Horse correct in proportion? Are DH/Cavaliers/Gendarmes then correct? How then do the relative costs of Mounted vs Foot work out?

John - the experience of the similar exercise is very useful, thank you for that.

All I want is a system in which if my NMA superior armoured DH are going to get stomped on by superior H/A cuirassier horse, that they at least cost about the same per unit as my troops do, not 20 points per unit less.

Just played five games (3.5 hours, 800 points) in a competition in Australia using the latest rules and points amendments we could find, so cavalry and superiors were quite a bit cheaper, making for bigger armies, however most games had a decisive result. One thing I was concerned about was the increased toughness of average BGs but this didn't seem to have any great effect on the overall length of games - or maybe I should rephrase it as the games were finished in the time limit.

Artillery rules were much easier and simpler. Definitely an improvement.

Average troops and arquebus seemed to be more prevalent, which I think is a good thing.

The armour re-roll took a while to get used to but wasn't a major inconvenience, I think it did result in more people using unarmoured horse and cavalry. Horse light lance sword might be a bit cheap compared to horse pistol pistol...

Dragoons seem overpriced, they are much less effective than before but cost the same. I think they should be dropped a point as their increased manoeuvrability compared to MF doesn't seem worth copping an autobreak on 50%, yet they are one point more. In fact they seemed so poor I will probably switch to light horse when I have the option or not use them at all. As it stands I think dragoons are dead men walking (or riding, occasionally). One unit even got chased down by some warriors.

Thanks for the feedback

Hi Nik

Don't want to add to your burdens but I've just thought of something. There is a previous set of errata for the old FoG:R which I think had got up to version 10 or so. Will you incorporate those (where relevant) into the new PDF so that there is now only a single document to look at - be particularly useful for new players.

Dave P

No problem, it is a good question.

I think we've always intended to include errata in the update document - may not have actually mentioned it though

It does seem like a perfect chance to not only consolidate, but also to remind people that these errata exist at all.

Hi,

How close are we to getting a final version of the rule revision? At the moment at the club we have split between the few competition players who use the new rules whilst the majority are sticking with the original rule set with minor revisions. Hopefully when a final version is published this will change, however, the uptake of the new FOGA ruleset so far is nil so i am not that hopeful we will all be using the same rule set for FOGR.

Still hoping for around the end of the year - should manage that unless Warfare throws us something weird.

jonphilp wrote:How close are we to getting a final version of the rule revision? At the moment at the club we have split between the few competition players who use the new rules whilst the majority are sticking with the original rule set with minor revisions. Hopefully when a final version is published this will change, however, the uptake of the new FOGA ruleset so far is nil so i am not that hopeful we will all be using the same rule set for FOGR.

Just to clarify, Jon was being a little generous - at the moment, my son and I are the only members of Wessex Wargames Society using the modified rules, and then only in competitions against players from outside WWS. Patrick and I use the original version when playing against fellow WWS club members and I don't see that changing.