Slitherine

Hello, I am eagerly awaiting my rulebook. But have a couple of questions.

First, in the meantime is there a good thread for an overveiw of the game?

Second as a WRG 6th player what do you think I will like / dislike about Field of Glory?

I like some depth to a wargame but not finiky detail Warhammer Ancients was too bland for me and I never played any DBA or DBM. Game play and fun are important but I want historical variation as well, I want to feel I am playing with Romans or whatever not just Warhammer fantasy by another name. I usualy play large games 2000 points by WRG 6th rules when I have all day too play. My armies are 25/28mm. Also I want to be able to play unbalanced games with objectives to decide a result rather than just casualties.

CyrusHavoc wrote:Hello, I am eagerly awaiting my rulebook. But have a couple of questions.

First, in the meantime is there a good thread for an overveiw of the game?

Second as a WRG 6th player what do you think I will like / dislike about Field of Glory?

Hi,

Welcome to the fourm. Your first question is a bit of a handfull though.

The short high level overview of FoG is that it is a streamlined game in a similar style to 6th edition with far cleaner and more 'modern' mechanisms.

I played all versions of WRG from 3rd through DBMM and the closest fit to FoG in any of them would be when I played 6th edition with my university mates, we all knew all the tables and we used a D20 to see if odd casualties caused a figure loss. I have fond memories of those 6th ed games as they really cracked along and were great fun.
FoG is IMO easy to pick up, cracks along at a good pace and rewards good generalship rathern than knowing the tricks of the game like DBM did.

I can't point you to an introduction or overview thread but if you want to ask a few more specific general questions I will do my best to answer.

Where are you based BTW?

Sadly as a 6th player who knew all the factors I can testify that good generalship is more important under FoG. My record in FOG is not as good.

Fog does feel like 6th edition - without the painful maths

CyrusHavoc wrote:is there a good thread for an overveiw of the game?

Try this thread. Its quite a comprehensive breakdown of how things work.
viewtopic.php?t=6832
Its the tactical tips collection from the general discussion page. Gives a thorough insight. (Though you may not agree with all the tips)

Second as a WRG 6th player what do you think I will like / dislike about Field of Glory?

Depends what you liked about 6th. I liked Irr A impetuous charges, and Viking Berserks. Neither of those here.

Having to take a Complex Move test NOT to charge with certain types of troops and the impact combat comes quite close to Irr A, IMO. A small BG of Superior knights into a pike phalanx because of a failed CMT is just as daft.

philqw78 wrote:Depends what you liked about 6th. I liked Irr A impetuous charges, and Viking Berserks. Neither of those here.

OK berserks are not in FoG but then they were pretty dodgy in 6th. Flying wedges of 120 troops armed with 2 sidearms, I think not.

In the charge 6th was all about getting your troops to go impetuous, the same is not the case in FoG. You can have troops take things into their own hands but if you want a powerful charge you just add a commander to the chargers (much like you would in 6th to get them to go loonie).

One of my favourite and totally historical tactics in 6th was to skirmish with my irregular B light chariots then if I was charged I had to take a reaction test and the result was either that I evaded (fair enough) or countercharged impetuously (woohoo )

Cheers for pointing to the tactics thread.

I am wondering if there is a need for a newbies start here thread.

Hammy

A newbies start here sticky would be a good idea. Things like how to read an army list and then get to an illegal starters army should perhaps be there.

Thanks for the help. The tactics thread should keep me going for a couple of days!

What I dont like in 6th is recording part figure casualties and the morale test which I find over complicated and find myself looking to achieve the factors needed to pass a test rather than just fighting the battle. Also the language is a little confusing at times though I have played enough games to have made my own interpretations. I dont like one casualty per figure as a cause to break finding it disadvantages unfairly units of say 16 v units of 24. Was not keen on the orders system.

I like the random elements with the dice using the difference between dice and the fact you could play against non historical Armies. Also liked having different troop types LHI EHC etc and variation weapons. Level of complexity overall was good.

What I hope to get from FOG is a greater feeling of comanding an Army rather than a series of units, concentration more on tactics, shorter tables to add up, a slightly quicker game perhaps, and complexity sufficent to have the right feel for period and army. (Unlike warhammer Ancients which is too bland with all armies seeming the same to me.)

I am based in Kent England play in a small group that is not really a club. There are about 8 of us although 2 to 4 is about usual for a game and we play most periods. Once every 2 weeks we play all day. One evening a week we play 'Blood Bowl' and one evening per week other games. Ancients WW2 & Acw are probably most popular but this changes from time to time. I have never played tournaments though I have in the distant past been to watch a few.

CyrusHavoc wrote:What I dont like in 6th is recording part figure casualties and the morale test which I find over complicated and find myself looking to achieve the factors needed to pass a test rather than just fighting the battle. Also the language is a little confusing at times though I have played enough games to have made my own interpretations. I dont like one casualty per figure as a cause to break finding it disadvantages unfairly units of say 16 v units of 24. Was not keen on the orders system.

OK,
FoG does not have part casualties. FoG is an element based system but you either remove whole elements or not and there is no recording of cumulative hits.
The 'reaction test' actually called cohesion test has at most a dozen modifiers. Most of the time there are less than four that count in any one test. I would say that by the third game virtually everyone knows the table.
The rules are written in converational English
There are 'hits per base' where a large unit will be less affected by a small number of hits than a small one
I make that three out of four pluses

I like the random elements with the dice using the difference between dice and the fact you could play against non historical Armies. Also liked having different troop types LHI EHC etc and variation weapons. Level of complexity overall was good.

There is a random element from dice, it is not the difference between two dice, you instead roll multiple dice. Better quality troops get to re roll 1s or 2s while bad troops reroll 6s.
Ahistorical matchups are fine.
Overall I would say that the rules are less complex than 6th

What I hope to get from FOG is a greater feeling of comanding an Army rather than a series of units, concentration more on tactics, shorter tables to add up, a slightly quicker game perhaps, and complexity sufficent to have the right feel for period and army. (Unlike warhammer Ancients which is too bland with all armies seeming the same to me.)

I think you may well find FoG to be a good answer to what you are looking for.

I am based in Kent England play in a small group that is not really a club. There are about 8 of us although 2 to 4 is about usual for a game and we play most periods. Once every 2 weeks we play all day. One evening a week we play 'Blood Bowl' and one evening per week other games. Ancients WW2 & Acw are probably most popular but this changes from time to time. I have never played tournaments though I have in the distant past been to watch a few.

Sounds like a nice group. There are some FoG players I am aware of in Kent but it is a long way from Manchester so I can;t advise you to consider my mext bootcamp

Bootcamp?

Having played virtually nothing but 6th until FoG came around, the most striking differences (aside of the UGO/IGO) were the radically different interaction of foot archers with other troop types and the changed effect of skirmishers, especially light horse.
In 6th as long as your foot archers could be regular (L)MI they were worth having and a threat, especially to mounted. In FoG the comparably short ranges, bad melee capability and increased susceptibility to mounted means that unless they can be superior and/or have secondary armament they better hide in terrain or get protected by other troops.
LH did get even more manoeuvrable but lost in threat. In FoG an enemy LH BG in your back is often more a nuisance (especially if still far enough from your camp). In 6th getting an enemy LH unit in your back is usually downright deadly.

I rather like the lack of bookkeeping; better, more current army lists; more balanced LH interactions. (It always bothered me that every mediocre LH could easily beat Mongol LH, just by virtue of getting Javelins and Shield.)

I somewhat dislike the vastly inflated numbers of figures and space needed. Those 120x80 cm tables 6th used were simply perfect, much easier to transport, and made finding places to play much easier then those gigantic boards FoG requires.

Thanks again Hammy & Ghaznavid for the helpful replies. It is all sounding good. We will give the rules a fair try and hopefully at least two of us will like them!

Table size should be no problem we have a permanent 8' x 5' and between us have several BIG armies.

I do like the UGO/IGO system as it gets around the 'if you do this then I will do that situations' which crop up in 6th.

Dont mind what random system is used so long as it is not too random (in Fire & Fury we as a group have chosen to average two dice rolls as we felt things were too extreme)

Hits per base sounds ok did not like the casualty counting mostly.

So long as its not too simple a little less complexity is probably a plus.

Not sure about the weaker shooting need a few games to understand the game balance.

I am not a fan of light cavalry never seem to work for me but I have suffered Huns in the rear enough times to see how effective they are in 6th!

One more question. Are there any rules in FOG for giving orders to battle groups at the start of a game, or is this covered by the alternate moves or somthing else? I do not like the 6th order rules.

No orders at all.

redben wrote:Bootcamp?

The MAWS club in Manchester have now run a couple of FoG 'bootcamps'

Essentially an open day all about trying to teach FoG to interested people, point out some more bits to newish players who want to learn more and a general opportunity to ask questions.

We had the hall for the whole day, in the morning there was a table where we ran a full refight of a battle with the total newbies and any of the other players who wanted to learn playing the game under 'expert' guidance and a couple of other tables setup to allow more complex issues to be explained to those wanting to know more detail.

In the afternoon the attending players were able to play their own games (with loaned armies if needed) or play as half a doubles team while the 'experts' were on hand to answer questions.

So far we have run two FoG bootcamps and are in the process of planning another.

hammy wrote: So far we have run two FoG bootcamps and are in the process of planning another.

Is this the Royal 'we'

CyrusHavoc wrote:
One more question. Are there any rules in FOG for giving orders to battle groups at the start of a game, or is this covered by the alternate moves or somthing else? I do not like the 6th order rules.

There are no written orders as Phil says but there are mechanisms that have similarities:

- battle groups and battle lines under a general's influence can move twice if the enemy aren't close - so not too dissimilar to the movement element of 6th Ed orders in some ways.

- troop types will tend to 'act naturally' when close to the enemy: knights and warband will charge, bowmen will stand and shoot, defensive spears will stand and take it, light horse will evade. So, if you will, the combat orders are embedded in the troop types. Troops can test to avoid acting naturally. Undrilled poor quality troops will probably do it anyway. Drilled elite troops with an Inspired general leading them are much more likely to do as you wish.

The morale system is much quicker than 6th - a big plus for me.

philqw78 wrote:

hammy wrote: So far we have run two FoG bootcamps and are in the process of planning another.

Is this the Royal 'we'

We as in the MAWS club, myself included. I have actually run a further intro session on my own for some players in Stafford.

philqw78 wrote:

hammy wrote: So far we have run two FoG bootcamps and are in the process of planning another.

Is this the Royal 'we'

Not exactly.

Hammy is just a big boy.

Spike

grahambriggs wrote:

CyrusHavoc wrote:
One more question. Are there any rules in FOG for giving orders to battle groups at the start of a game, or is this covered by the alternate moves or somthing else? I do not like the 6th order rules.

There are no written orders as Phil says but there are mechanisms that have similarities:

- battle groups and battle lines under a general's influence can move twice if the enemy aren't close - so not too dissimilar to the movement element of 6th Ed orders in some ways.

- troop types will tend to 'act naturally' when close to the enemy: knights and warband will charge, bowmen will stand and shoot, defensive spears will stand and take it, light horse will evade. So, if you will, the combat orders are embedded in the troop types. Troops can test to avoid acting naturally. Undrilled poor quality troops will probably do it anyway. Drilled elite troops with an Inspired general leading them are much more likely to do as you wish.

The morale system is much quicker than 6th - a big plus for me.

Yes this sounds better to me but only playing the game will tell me for sure. Wish the rules would turn up Amazon are a bit slow!