Slitherine

It seems Slitherine is saying that having a printed book will cost to much will have issues with leftover stock, then they say they will not make money with all the development with the rules for the different systems. So I guess they will never make any money either way? I also question on how much the main rules will cost? If it is close to what a book costs then I think there will be some issues from people on that also. Also is it a one time cost or a subscription, as to where you have to pay to get the updates? Same thing with army lists, will they be released as add-ons similar to the computer game with another significant cost or will they be bundled into the cost of the main rules? Will there be a discount for those who own all the previous army lists? I do not see people who have the army lists already buying them if the are add-ons to the main rules. People will just find out the changes and pencil them into their current books. Seems like Slitherine should have included a lot more information on the news release on FoG v2.0 to put some of our questions and concerns at ease. It will be interesting if slitherine will stop support if there are not enough purchases of the v2.0

I also like how someone who just joined yesterday and is praising this decision to go digital, talks about the young people in the hobby and trying to attract them into FoG. They say that this digital format will give them more incentive to start playing FoG. For me I have never seen anyone under the age of 20 playing FoG. (Yes my experience is at tournaments and local meet ups). Kids today would never invest nor have the time and patience to get at least a 650 point army onto the table before their interest wains and they go off into something else. I think the majority of young people who do have tablets and I-Pads are not interested in miniature war gaming. I believe this is 25+ market for which the majority of players currently will have no access to these rules on tablet format. Tablet format being the least cumbersome and obtrusive on a gaming table then having mac or pc laptop.

jdm wrote: Finally, there is a lot of erroneous assumptions about various technical limitations being suggested in the forum which are largely inaccurate. Additionally there are not many gamers around without at least a PC, so I cannot accept that by our decision we have limited access to the rules.

JD, you are (or at least were) a tournament gamer, would you be all right showing up to play not being to actually reference the rules? Because while there are many gamers around who do not have a portable PC/iPad that they can take to their club, game store or tournament. I have not played a miniatures game in my house in over a decade. The inability to have a copy available where people normally play without paying out $500 for an ipad is a incredible severe limitation. I actually have an iPad, but then I am I believe the ONLY one of my local FoG scene that do so. So my anecdotal evidence is that iPad penetration in my gamign circle is perhaps 10-20% at most.

There are so many print on demand options out there in the world that would hav bridged the gap that it is hard to see why one of these was not chose alongside electronic options. Yes, this is probably the way of the future - but it is the future not today. Slitherine staff should ask around at Britcon, how many people there have an ipad? how many would get it to play FoG? I suspect the number is not high.

If this is really a labor of love that is no longer commercially viable, release it onto the internet and go open source. That IMO is the future of something like this. Set-up a committee to oversee things and just make it free/donation-ware.

Right now, this is going to be something that Slitherine payed to develop that won't be played or purchased.

Unprintable is an absolute deal breaker.

Who wants to play a wargame where you dont even have a copy of the rules with you?

There may be some players who are confident they can always have one of the required gizmos with them and fully functioning at all times but I believe they are a very small minority.

Please reconsider

Martin

madaxeman wrote:I struggle to think of many meaningful situations where it would kick in, other than when one player has SSw capability ? Or am I missing something?

Not being able to get a double POA means a variety of challenges.
If someone is fighting in two directions the armour advantage does not give you a ++ for example.

Not being able to get ++ means sometimes less armour and superior may be the right call.

In FOG R we see a lot fewer double POA and that alters the game somewhat.

The question is do superior 4 base cavarly break on 2 now, instead of 3. If so, then superior's value is degraded.

But it also has the opposite effect a lot of troops like plain archers. no longer get double POA'd by everyone who is armoured sword.

I think it will apply a lot. the key word you say is "meaningful". It may end up being subtle which is not all that bad.

Sorry I don't believe the guff about no money to be made from printed books. If I go to Lulu.com it tells me I can upload my book for free and keep 80% of the revenue. My potential customers even get a choice of how they would like their book printed. Yes printing huge stocks of titles that don't sell is a way to lose money, not print on demand.

hazelbark wrote:The question is do superior 4 base cavarly break on 2 now, instead of 3. If so, then superior's value is degraded.

They autobreak when they have lost 3 bases.

However, if they broke through cohesion loss, they cannot rally (and are removed at the end of the JAP) if they have lost 2 bases.

They also get -2 CT modifier for having lost 2 x 25% when they are on 2 bases.

rbodleyscott wrote:

hazelbark wrote:The question is do superior 4 base cavarly break on 2 now, instead of 3. If so, then superior's value is degraded.

They autobreak when they have lost 3 bases.

However, if they broke through cohesion loss, they cannot rally (and are removed at the end of the JAP) if they have lost 2 bases.

God Bless you RBS. Great to know you are involved and a key figure in the development on this. I realize the development of 2.0 was a bit of a visit to Gitmo for you. So thanks for seeing it through.

PS I like the above description.

hazelbark wrote: But it also has the opposite effect a lot of troops like plain archers. no longer get double POA'd by everyone who is armoured sword.
.

Good spot. And if there is no '-' for impact phase shooting anymore, unarmoured or protected archers might almost become a vaguely viable troop type.

madaxeman wrote:

hazelbark wrote: But it also has the opposite effect a lot of troops like plain archers. no longer get double POA'd by everyone who is armoured sword.
.

Good spot. And if there is no '-' for impact phase shooting anymore, unarmoured or protected archers might almost become a vaguely viable troop type.

The biblical armies become interesting. Heck the NKE get better operational chariots and their foot is not as badly outclassed. Someone call the Madigan !!

How will this affect other FoG games? Are we going to see the rest of the planned FoG Ren and FoG Nap stuff out in print? Will their inevitable second eds be released on digital only?

NicktheLemming wrote:How will this affect other FoG games? Are we going to see the rest of the planned FoG Ren

FOG Renaissance and all its army list books are already in print.

Any future changes are likely to be a very small number of minor tweaks, as it is generally working well as written.

NicktheLemming wrote:How will this affect other FoG games? Are we going to see the rest of the planned FoG Ren and FoG Nap stuff out in print? Will their inevitable second eds be released on digital only?

Well I think both N and R are much newer in there life cycle. So no fear anytime soon. So it is ancients that is first into this breach. And you never want to be the first squad storming the breach, but someone always is.

I think their is a digitial future in general for the hobby. Look at people's comments. If it was easy to get on multi-platforms and had an approprirate print capablity that would be terrific.

madaxeman wrote:

kevinj wrote:

I struggle to think of many meaningful situations where it would kick in, other than when one player has SSw capability

Steady Armoured Spear vs Protected Swordsmen springs to mind.

OK - so Spartans vs Galatians then, as I don't recall seeing many protected swordsmen in the dark ages and medieval periods

Does that mean that in practice this might more properly thought of as a "lets make warbands a bit better against some of their historical opponents" rule rather than a "lets make armour slightly less important" rule ?

..... Probably ... What about SSW vs SW if the sword is protected and the SSW is armored? Just had my first cup of coffee ... so I may be brain-dead-er than normal. And helping fix the Gallic v. Roman combat is a positive for the game.

Mike B

mbsparta wrote: ..... Probably ... What about SSW vs SW if the sword is protected and the SSW is armored? Just had my first cup of coffee ... so I may be brain-dead-er than normal. And helping fix the Gallic v. Roman combat is a positive for the game.

This is exactly where it matters the armour apparently doesn't create a ++.

So barbarians are no longer purely wood going into the wood chipper. Tie for teh return of the Dacians !

Yeah, this should pretty much put a nail in it here at Great Hall Games. If I can't sell the rules along with the minis, then I can't attract new players. Don't have an iPad, store computers are not available to customers. That leaves sending people to load that game on their own. There go the sales. Sigh, after working for so many years to build up the game and the community here in Austin.

Why not go with Print on Demand? Margins may be narrower, but there is no upfront cost so risk is mitigated. Also allows frequent new additions, since you just have to create a new pdf.

So, anyone hear of any good alternatives for FOG?

This is my biggest worry, and YET again I'd like to point out my concern about the lgs which is where most Americans play at least some games. They do have a say in what they offer and promote to customers....

Ian

GHGAustin wrote:Yeah, this should pretty much put a nail in it here at Great Hall Games. If I can't sell the rules along with the minis, then I can't attract new players. Don't have an iPad, store computers are not available to customers. That leaves sending people to load that game on their own. There go the sales. Sigh, after working for so many years to build up the game and the community here in Austin.

Why not go with Print on Demand? Margins may be narrower, but there is no upfront cost so risk is mitigated. Also allows frequent new additions, since you just have to create a new pdf.

So, anyone hear of any good alternatives for FOG?

Easiest alternative is just to stay with V.1 Absent a printable version (and while I haven't parsed the entire thread, I THINK the answer is that their won't be one) I can't see this catching on in the US. The crowd that plays here is not the Ipad crowd, and folks aren't going to haul laptops (if they have them) to tournaments/game stores.

Also, I notice that the 2" retire option is still available for non-shock cav/ L. Chariots. Wasn't the general conclusion that this broke the game? Or have I missed a subtle change here.

Some random observations:

1) This is unlikely to be the last word in v2.0. The approach is far more flexible / adaptable than the formal, hard copy Osprey publications. If I understand correctly, the initial offering will be PC/Mac/iPad. This does not preclude future options.

2) The ePub space is evolving very, very rapidly. We've (well my wife) had an iPad for 2 months. We've had a subscription to National Geographic for sometime but the app for the iPad is phenomenal and offers far more than the magazine. It's worthwhile to point out that the pdf format was specifically designed to produce a concrete, e-form of paper (e.g., the 8 1/2" by 11" page) to meet the technical needs of business (e.g., it's not nice to see that the contract you signed has been modified afterwards). That means it's not great for e-reading (e.g., no re-flow of text, re-sizing, etc.). Of course, it's suitable for printing. However, if you're following the changes, we should expect to see ePubs moving into the technical space of pdfs (to meet the needs of business) while pdfs will be incorporating features that make them more suitable for e-reading.

3) Apple intends to produce a mini version of the iPad which will be cheaper and will compete with e-readers like Kindle. That's likely to be in the near future and will help with FoG 2.0. Even better is more competition will inevitably mean cheaper or better. Of course, you'd be foolish to buy an iPad or any other e-reader just to play FoG Ancients. However, you can be sure that there are going to be more and more reasons to get an e-reader / tablet. It's not just hard copy books that are dying....newspapers are in just as bad or worse shape.

4) An e-reader is no more cumbersome than a rule booklet on the gaming table. In fact it's more convenient when you can cart along all of rules, army list books, etc. Book marking important sections is dead easy. You can highlight sections and add notes (e.g., FAQ references).

5) I expect that someone bringing a laptap to a game will probably look more out-dated than someone bringing a hard copy set of the rules. Laptops are the portable version of the desktop. They're good for business in terms of producing information, but the consumption of information is well on the way to being dominated by mobile phones / e-readers / tablets. Although the distinction is blurring - competition will do that.

6) The plight of those who don't have e-readers / tablets is real. A good suggestion is a pdf file with just v2.0 amendments that can be purchased and printed since v2.0 isn't that different from v1.0. One advantage is that it retains some of the value of unsold books that are still in stores. It's an advantage to slitherine too as it heads off illegal amendment sheets being developed and distributed. I expect that those people who already have an iPad will still buy the e-version of v2.0 and not just the pdf amendment file.

7) Back to point 1...don't expect that this is the last word. That's actually old hard copy thinking.

speaking as someone who can't even operate a mobile phone,those that know me know how true this is,this will be impossible .I don't even understand half the words in this thread,I shudder to think what umpiring the Challenge will be like, they'll have to come to the umpires chair to look at a pc rather than going to them,assuming I've got one with the app on....I suppose I could make it up as usual
Any voluteers to add the changes to my rule book?
David