Slitherine

Eh, I have to disagree about the "Tech Manual" layout (that it could work without too much efffort), but it doesnt matter much. I agree with the other opinions that while it is a good book, there are several glaring issues which make it incredibly difficult to learn. Not being an expert, I cant say what would or would not fix it, just that I am having the problems, and others seem to be as well.

Regardless, this is what we have to deal with, so I will just keep coming back until I get it.

scomac wrote:A unit can be in good order, disorder, or severe disorder, based on how severely terrain disrupts its formation, but that quality of a unit (how well it's keeping its formation) doesn't have a name in the rules.

Maybe if we called it the "Chaos status" it would encourage GW players to come over to us .

scomac wrote:In my group we have an IT specialist with undergrad degrees in computer science and history, an accountant who writes his own rules for fun, and a teacher of both English and History. We're a pretty bright group of guys, and we usually pick up rules very quickly. Still, we've struggled to understand the FoG rules well enough to play the game properly. Once we do understand the rules, I think we'll do fine, but it's definitely an uphill struggle.

I think our biggest problem is with the rules layout. The section on "victory and defeat" for example, lists how many attrition points each side needs for victory without actually defining attrition points. The effects of battle group disorder are explained only once, in "battle groups" rather than "maneuver." Why do "maneuver" and "general movement rules" have different sections? We end up shuffling back and forth between them a lot. For a long time, we thought references to "disordered" and "severely disordered" in the tables must have been mistakenly included from earlier versions of the rules. Like others, we had a tough time getting that both sides applied the net POA to combat.

As I wrote, once we become more familiar with the rules, we won't have to look things up as often, and the organization won't be as big a problem. But it makes for a steep learning curve.

Still, the writing could be tighter. Why have two different unit states, one called "disordered," the other called "disrupted," and both caused by different things? Why not change "disrupted" to "shaken" for clarity? A unit can be in good order, disorder, or severe disorder, based on how severely terrain disrupts its formation, but that quality of a unit (how well it's keeping its formation) doesn't have a name in the rules. That seems more like cohesion to me, and what is now "cohesion" seems more like morale state.

The disrupted/disordered thing was raised during playtesting but the authors decided not to change it. The consequence of this is in the errata for page 84.

IMO the authors' motivation for some of the terminology was to give the impression of novelty compared to previous games, and in some cases is spurious, e.g.

"Battlegroup" = "unit"
"Cohesion" = "morale"
"++" = "+2"

The chapter organisation was intended to separate out "How to do things" (e.g. general movement rules) from "what to do and when to do it" (e.g. Manoeuvre Phase). With hindsight, it might have been less confusing if they had grouped all the "How to do things" chapters together, rather than interspersing them between the "what and when" chapters.

p113 - Cohesion Tests

At the bottom:

"Foot testing for having lost impact phase combat even party against impact foot"

So, thats any sort of foot, even other impact foot?

yes.. The same goes with lancers.

One thing that people have told me on here is that you read the rules and if it says something to take it literal and not read into it. So if it says you must use a modifier if losing to impact foot, then regardless of what type of troops lost (unless specidied in the modifier) you only consider the type of troops you lost to. Took me a while to get that concept down pat

Brian

I guess that does make sense, though it will probably take me awhile to get the hang of it. Used to looking into rules over and over and over again.


Now, another question. Field Fortifications and Portable Defences.

I get that troops defending a FF count the front of the FF as their front. So, good idea for archers/artillery. What I dont get is the following:

"Troops defending FF cannot be charged in flank/rear across the fortification, and suffer no POA penalty for fighting in more than one direction across them."

Portable Defences work like FF against mounted opponents other than elephants, but give no advantage against foot, elephants, or shooting.


So... I dont get it.

Here is the scenario I anticipate. My friend will be using the English starter army from the FoG rulebook. He will have 12 FF, probably to hide his guns and archers behind. How should he set them up to be effective, and how does it work? Can I not charge him on the front, or just the sides/rear? Do the FF have to be blocking the side/rear to prevent me from charging? If so, whats the point of having it on the front?

One thing I've learnt with complex rule sets - and FoG is one - is not to get hung up on getting everything absolutely right first time.

Read the rules through carefully a couple of times and then get stuck into a couple of games using relatively straight forward armies - concentrate on the bits of the rules you'll definitely use in the first games. Then after each game go back and check the rules to find out what you did wrong, because you will[/] make mistakes, and then get it right next time.

By the time you've played half a dozen games you'll have the important basics sorted and can start to worry about other things

Omar wrote:I guess that does make sense, though it will probably take me awhile to get the hang of it. Used to looking into rules over and over and over again.


Now, another question. Field Fortifications and Portable Defences.

I get that troops defending a FF count the front of the FF as their front. So, good idea for archers/artillery. What I dont get is the following:

"Troops defending FF cannot be charged in flank/rear across the fortification, and suffer no POA penalty for fighting in more than one direction across them."

Portable Defences work like FF against mounted opponents other than elephants, but give no advantage against foot, elephants, or shooting.


So... I dont get it.

Here is the scenario I anticipate. My friend will be using the English starter army from the FoG rulebook. He will have 12 FF, probably to hide his guns and archers behind. How should he set them up to be effective, and how does it work? Can I not charge him on the front, or just the sides/rear? Do the FF have to be blocking the side/rear to prevent me from charging? If so, whats the point of having it on the front?

as it says in the quote above, you cannot charge a flank or rear across the fortification. You can charge flank or rear if it is not across the FF, so clearly the FF have to be blocking the side/rear to prevent the charge. It does not say that you can't charge the enemy front across fortifications, so therefore you can do this.

That would make sense on its own, but the rest of that bullet point in the rules (page 121) appears to imply that you can charge the flank or rear across fortifications, but it does not count as a "flank/rear charge", you just fight as if it were a frontal charge. The authors might like to clarify that.


FF on your front give you a +POA in close combat and give the enemy a - POA for shooting at you (see the POA tables), so it is worth having them on your front.

FF and troops defending them can be deployed further forward than normal troops, which is another advantage, especially for heavy artillery.

I guess that does make sense, though it will probably take me awhile to get the hang of it. Used to looking into rules over and over and over again.


Now, another question. Field Fortifications and Portable Defences.

I get that troops defending a FF count the front of the FF as their front. So, good idea for archers/artillery. What I dont get is the following:

"Troops defending FF cannot be charged in flank/rear across the fortification, and suffer no POA penalty for fighting in more than one direction across them."

Portable Defences work like FF against mounted opponents other than elephants, but give no advantage against foot, elephants, or shooting.


So... I dont get it.

Here is the scenario I anticipate. My friend will be using the English starter army from the FoG rulebook. He will have 12 FF, probably to hide his guns and archers behind. How should he set them up to be effective, and how does it work? Can I not charge him on the front, or just the sides/rear? Do the FF have to be blocking the side/rear to prevent me from charging? If so, whats the point of having it on the front?

These rules are meant to be literal Omar, not interpreted. So you can often break them down into sections for understanding. In this case:

OK, say your friend takes 12 FF. Let's take "how does it work" first. Let's say for the sake of argument he puts them in one long line and stands troops behind them. If you attack across the fortification the physical difference on the table is that your bases touch the fortification model but fight impact/melee as if they were touching the enemy bases behind it. There is nothing that says you can't charge frontally.

Then you fight the phases as usual, checking POAs (I can't recall whether there's a bonus or not). You don't get any POAs that are applicable only in good going (e.g. lance) - thats in the glossary (for some reason) entry for FF.

Now, let's say you've got a cavalry lancer BG in a good position. They've bypassed the FF and are able to charge the flank of an enemy HW foot BG that has it's front edge defending the FF. Let's say you have another of your BG's fighting that enemy frontally. As your flank charge goes in, your bases will physically touch the flank of the enemy BG, so they will drop to disrupted, you'll fight the impact at ++ vs. -- and in the following melee the enemy will have a - POA for fighting in two directions. Unless he's very lucky, he's toast.

Now consider what happens if the enemy deploys his FFs differently. Let's say that he puts ten in a line to his front but at each end of the line has a FF at right angles to rest the flaks of his troops against. Let's say the same thing happens - you fight him to the front whilst getting the Cv on his flank.

This time, your flank charge hits the 'right angles' FF. While you can do this, it doesn't count as a flank charge. So you fight on normal factors. But, you don't count your lance because of fighting across FF. So you're disadvantaged in impact. Then in the melee, the enemy does not count as fighting in two directions. So the most likely result is your cavalry will get the worst of it then have to break off. So the FF on the flank makes a big difference.

In terms of what's the best way to use the FF. Well, 12 in a long line covers more ground. So, if you happen to have a 12 base width gap say between terrain that you really need to cover, that would be good. On the other hand on a wide open plain with a lot of manouver in prospect you'd probably want some flank cover. Of course, you could go the whole hog and put the FF in a 3 by 3 square, but then it's only three wide on any side - so quite costly for what it gives you.

I guess my issue here is that there doesnt seem (to me) to be any point in putting them to the front. Not in reading the FF description. I will go check elsewhere in the book to see if there is something tucked away.

I was thinking a 6 base wide front, with 3 on each side. If they get to your rear, you deserve the charge.

Also, should you put them corner to corner or overlap a little? Could an enemy attack corner to corner through FF to bypass the penalty?

Omar wrote:I guess my issue here is that there doesnt seem (to me) to be any point in putting them to the front. Not in reading the FF description. I will go check elsewhere in the book to see if there is something tucked away.

I was thinking a 6 base wide front, with 3 on each side. If they get to your rear, you deserve the charge.

Also, should you put them corner to corner or overlap a little? Could an enemy attack corner to corner through FF to bypass the penalty?

FF give you a POA against frontal attacks (and shooting). See the bottom line in each of the POA tables.

Attacks at an FF corner are still across the FF so do not bypass the penalty.

Played a good chunk of a full game last night. The English starter army vs the Nikephorian Byzantine starter army. Mostly open terrain, with a few uneven patches, one rough patch, and one body of water. He played his FF center with archers and guns, so I bypassed them on the flanks. Used my spearmen/archers and rus on one side (countered by some longbowmen and men-at-arms, with the welsh spears coming up behind). I am learning how to use my cavalry and skirmishers as well.

Anyway, when I actually get around to a FULL game, I will post an AAR. Until then, we have some more questions:

- With shooting and cohesion tests, is it 1HP3 or 1HP2? The easy reference sheet says one thing, the rulebook says another.

- With the 1HP3 on impact, do we round up or down? That seemed to be a constant question with rounding.

- There was a situation with Interpenetrating skirmishers that we didnt know how to handle. I wish I could draw you a picture. You had a unit of 6 skirmishers in front of a battleline of Men-at-Arms. A few inches behind the skirmishers was a block of 4 bases of cavalry, and off to the side was a line of two Kataphractos with a Troop Commander in the rear (so, 3 cav bases long). The M@A charged, the skirmishers evaded, and fell directly back. Now, with the extra 2MU rule, they could of cleared the cav. But, with the column formation of the kataphracts and commander, you had half the BG which made it, and the other half that couldnt. How are they placed? We ended up moving half back all the way, and the other half in front of the Cav/Kataphracts until the next maneuver phase, where they were placed next to the half of their unit that made it, then moved normally.


This question is somewhat army specific.. but I am looking at the Principate Roman List. With Auxillary, you can choose HF or MF. I cant tell if they mean for each BG, or every Aux in the army. It seems more reasonable that each BG would have to be one or the other (so, I could take 1BG of HF, 1BG of MF).


Thanks!

Omar wrote:
Anyway, when I actually get around to a FULL game, I will post an AAR. Until then, we have some more questions:

- With shooting and cohesion tests, is it 1HP3 or 1HP2? The easy reference sheet says one thing, the rulebook says another.

You test if you take 1Hp3 from shooting - rules and reference say this.

I suspect you're getting mixed up with the modifier - there is a -1 for 1Hp2 on shooting but 1Hp3 in melee.

- With the 1HP3 on impact, do we round up or down? That seemed to be a constant question with rounding.

It is calculated per full 3 bases - the FAQ has a section on it http://www.fieldofglory.com/file/FAQ_ver5.01.pdf

- There was a situation with Interpenetrating skirmishers that we didnt know how to handle. I wish I could draw you a picture. You had a unit of 6 skirmishers in front of a battleline of Men-at-Arms. A few inches behind the skirmishers was a block of 4 bases of cavalry, and off to the side was a line of two Kataphractos with a Troop Commander in the rear (so, 3 cav bases long). The M@A charged, the skirmishers evaded, and fell directly back. Now, with the extra 2MU rule, they could of cleared the cav. But, with the column formation of the kataphracts and commander, you had half the BG which made it, and the other half that couldnt. How are they placed? We ended up moving half back all the way, and the other half in front of the Cav/Kataphracts until the next maneuver phase, where they were placed next to the half of their unit that made it, then moved normally.

Sounds like you did it about right - note that you only get the extra 2MU if you would clear your other BG, if you can't you don't get it.

This question is somewhat army specific.. but I am looking at the Principate Roman List. With Auxillary, you can choose HF or MF. I cant tell if they mean for each BG, or every Aux in the army. It seems more reasonable that each BG would have to be one or the other (so, I could take 1BG of HF, 1BG of MF).

Covered by a note in the list that says that all the Auxilia in the army must be MF or HF.

nikgaukroger wrote:You test if you take 1Hp3 from shooting - rules and reference say this.

I suspect you're getting mixed up with the modifier - there is a -1 for 1Hp2 on shooting but 1Hp3 in melee.

Yea, I did get mixed up. So, you test if you take 1HP3 from shooting, and then you get -1 for 1HP2 from the shooting (meaning if your testing due to shooting, your already at -1)?

It is calculated per full 3 bases - the FAQ has a section on it http://www.fieldofglory.com/file/FAQ_ver5.01.pdf

Ok, I will check that again.

Sounds like you did it about right - note that you only get the extra 2MU if you would clear your other BG, if you can't you don't get it.

Ok, so I shouldnt of moved 1/2 of the BG the full (with the extra 2MU) and left the other half up front? They should of all stayed up front?

Covered by a note in the list that says that all the Auxilia in the army must be MF or HF.

Was not sure if that was per BG or as a whole in the army.


Thanks!

Omar wrote:
Yea, I did get mixed up. So, you test if you take 1HP3 from shooting, and then you get -1 for 1HP2 from the shooting (meaning if your testing due to shooting, your already at -1)?

Not necessarily.

For example if you have a 6 base BG that takes 2 hits it needs to test as it has taken 1Hp3 but it would need to take 3 hits to suffer the 1Hp2.

Ah, ok, that makes sense as well.

Something I noticed.. larger BGs seem to be at an advantage with shooting. It seemed harder to force cohesion tests with units of 6-8 than it is with 4, unless I am hitting it with multiple units.

Also, it really helped to soften it up with some shooting, then charge in with troops geared for it (in this case, Lancers vs Archers). As you loose cohesion, it makes it even easier to keep loosing it, until you break.

Don't forget that only the first 3 ranks count for the Hp2 and Hp3 threshold calculations, so large BG's in deeper formations are still vulnerable to shooting.

Omar wrote:Ah, ok, that makes sense as well.

Something I noticed.. larger BGs seem to be at an advantage with shooting. It seemed harder to force cohesion tests with units of 6-8 than it is with 4, unless I am hitting it with multiple units.

Also, it really helped to soften it up with some shooting, then charge in with troops geared for it (in this case, Lancers vs Archers). As you loose cohesion, it makes it even easier to keep loosing it, until you break.

It depends.

Larger BGs need more hits to force a test but as they are larger targets it is quite likely they will be taking more shooting. Because only bases in the front 3 ranks count for 1HP3B purposes you actually never need more than one hit per file to force a test. The downside of large BGs and shooting is that as they are more likely to take 3 hits (more shooting because bigger target) then they are more likely to lse bases from shooting.

What page does it refer to the front bases for 1HP3B? I cant find that in there.

Thanks for the replies. Working on my Principate Roman and Nikephorian Byzantine lists and trying to decide between the 4/6/8 bases with some groups.