Slitherine

FoG has been out for about 18 months now. When it first came out all seemed fine and dandy. But it has now had 18 months of rules lawyers and competition players finding things to gain advantage. I particularly have come in for criticism recently. It is a good rule set and pretty simple to boot. But we all now think some things are broken. Some think a rule is broken when others do not, and it seems that most of us have accepted some things that are peculiar since we know the rule.

Instead of whingeing we should be thinking about the best and simplest way to fix these things, even if an amended rule set is not on the horizon. Some have already been suggested on their own thread. Here I am going to put a collection together with the percieved problem. All you lot need to do is come up with a way to fix it.

If you believe other things are broken add them.

Perceived Problem
BG moving through others and gaining extra move distance. That BG can then itself be passed through by the same BG to gain extra move distance again. This can give massive move distances for some mounted and LF. (Even I believe this is broken)

What's the solution?

Perceived Problem
Armies having a large number of very small and manoeuvrable BG are hard to beat in competition time scale.

(I don't think this is a massive problem, but it does make it harder against better or equally good players. There is less of a swing in fortune losing 1 BG of 18 than 1 of 12.)

Do we need a solution?

Perceived Problem
Player chooses a road and river and places them at table edge to reduce the amount of terrain that can be placed on the table by the opponent. (I don't think there is anything wrong with this personally, obviously lots of others do)

Whats the Solution?

Problem
Threatened BG with the capability to evade near the table edge evade off table for the loss of only 1AP. If they stayed on table they would most likely cost their owner 2AP for being routed. This makes large skirmish armies very difficult to beat, and after evading they are lost to the battle anyway.

Whats the Solution, is it a problem?

Having to test not to charge even though you know you are going to be charged in the flank or rear.

I find it peculiar that everybody accepts this. Its seems very unrealistic, "The enemy are behind us sir", "it doesn't matter sergeant we will charge anyway and be taken from the rear" (officers huh), but everybody knows the rules and just gets on with it. It does have the advantage of speeding up the game though

Is it a problem is there a solution?

philqw78 wrote:Perceived Problem
Armies having a large number of very small and manoeuvrable BG are hard to beat in competition time scale.
(I don't think this is a massive problem, but it does make it harder against better or equally good players. There is less of a swing in fortune losing 1 BG of 18 than 1 of 12.)
Do we need a solution?

"Small" AND "maneuverable" is the issue here - otherwise its a skirmisher issue. I suggest its list-amendment based rather than rules, and the absence of 4-paks of drilled MF in every list book after "Leg Irons Tembling" shows the authors have already done something. Make Roman auxilia into 6's instead of 4's, and artificial legionaries in Thrace and Bosporia into 6's as well and this largely goes away IMO.

Othewise you implement a pip-type command and control system - but thats more than a "fix"

philqw78 wrote:Problem
Threatened BG with the capability to evade near the table edge evade off table for the loss of only 1AP. If they stayed on table they would most likely cost their owner 2AP for being routed. This makes large skirmish armies very difficult to beat, and after evading they are lost to the battle anyway.
Whats the Solution, is it a problem?

They all count as 2AP if your baggage is eaten. Simple and quite fun.

philqw78 wrote:Having to test not to charge even though you know you are going to be charged in the flank or rear.
I find it peculiar that everybody accepts this. Its seems very unrealistic, "The enemy are behind us sir", "it doesn't matter sergeant we will charge anyway and be taken from the rear" (officers huh), but everybody knows the rules and just gets on with it. It does have the advantage of speeding up the game though
Is it a problem is there a solution?

I always though that this was essentially just that one particular combination of "charger" and "intercept charger" has been missed off the "its a reason not to have to test to charge" list. Fairly easy to add back in.

philqw78 wrote:Perceived Problem
Player chooses a road and river and places them at table edge to reduce the amount of terrain that can be placed on the table by the opponent. (I don't think there is anything wrong with this personally, obviously lots of others do) Whats the Solution?

Roads placed last (aesthetically) or Terrain can be placed on top of already deployed roads. Either really.

philqw78 wrote:Perceived Problem
Armies having a large number of very small and manoeuvrable BG are hard to beat in competition time scale.

(I don't think this is a massive problem, but it does make it harder against better or equally good players. There is less of a swing in fortune losing 1 BG of 18 than 1 of 12.)

Do we need a solution?

I think this one needs a solution, or perhaps two. To me, the biggest issue is the sort of armies you see that are mostly skirmishers. the skirmishers are difficult to pin down and can quite frequently just evade off table when in trouble. They make for a bit of a dull game. Of course you can fan out and push them back but there's usually something tough around that stops you - often there's 2-3 BGs of knights and the rest are skirmishers.

While this might be a historical result against the 'swarm of horse archer' armies, it's dull and we're seeing far more BGs of skirmishers than there were historically.

Solutions? Perhaps a BG of 4 LH or 4 or 6 LF counts as only a half towards army size?

Introduce a 'unit cost' to be added to the points cost - probably causes more problems with the balances in the rules.

Alternatively, play on narrower tables. 800 point FoG has the same 'wide open spaces' feel that 350 point DBM had. The problem is that there's too much table to cover for most armies. That wouldn't need a rule change, so that would make most sense to me/

The Roman swarm issue is similar in some respects, and equally dull to play against

grahambriggs wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Perceived Problem
Armies having a large number of very small and manoeuvrable BG are hard to beat in competition time scale.

(I don't think this is a massive problem, but it does make it harder against better or equally good players. There is less of a swing in fortune losing 1 BG of 18 than 1 of 12.)

Do we need a solution?

I think this one needs a solution, or perhaps two. To me, the biggest issue is the sort of armies you see that are mostly skirmishers. the skirmishers are difficult to pin down and can quite frequently just evade off table when in trouble. They make for a bit of a dull game. Of course you can fan out and push them back but there's usually something tough around that stops you - often there's 2-3 BGs of knights and the rest are skirmishers.

While this might be a historical result against the 'swarm of horse archer' armies, it's dull and we're seeing far more BGs of skirmishers than there were historically.

Solutions? Perhaps a BG of 4 LH or 4 or 6 LF counts as only a half towards army size?

Introduce a 'unit cost' to be added to the points cost - probably causes more problems with the balances in the rules.

Alternatively, play on narrower tables. 800 point FoG has the same 'wide open spaces' feel that 350 point DBM had. The problem is that there's too much table to cover for most armies. That wouldn't need a rule change, so that would make most sense to me/

The Roman swarm issue is similar in some respects, and equally dull to play against

I understand what your saying here. But to stop armies like the Mongols Seljik Turks or Huns Skythians from using a historical move ie skirmishing will kill these armies dead maybe thats the intention. If thats the case you'll be left with armies that can Line up in the middle like MM and meet in the middle among a dice fest.
I find certain armies dull to play against but taking the ability of them to be played in FOG seems a bit harsh unless i can get the armies i dislike removed from the table.
Lets all play with medium foot super drilled 4 bases to a BG 19 BG armies now thats a dull thought.

Just a thought there a great amount to say about skirmish armies and so little to say with regard to Roman swarm armies. Of course this has nothing to do with who plays roman swarm armies then.

david53 wrote:Just a thought there a great amount to say about skirmish armies and so little to say with regard to Roman swarm armies. Of course this has nothing to do with who plays roman swarm armies then.

I doubt there is anyone who thinks the swarm is right, but a/ Graham doesn't post on this forum and he;s one of very few people to successfully use them, and b/ that post is not exactly a suggestion to fix them.

grahambriggs wrote: Alternatively, play on narrower tables.

..or with more points ?

madaxeman wrote:

david53 wrote:Just a thought there a great amount to say about skirmish armies and so little to say with regard to Roman swarm armies. Of course this has nothing to do with who plays roman swarm armies then.

I doubt there is anyone who thinks the swarm is right, but a/ Graham doesn't post on this forum and he;s one of very few people to successfully use them, and b/ that post is not exactly a suggestion to fix them.

There was no point you'd covered the best plan change the army list, simple but effective but will it happen any time soon. I'll not hold my breath shall I.

The changing of the skrimish is a bit harder, since I don't think anything is broken they do what they did in history as either Mongols Turks Huns. Take the Mongols the European knights could not understand why they would shoot and ride off if charged so unfair of them I'm sure I've heard that across the table playing fog a few times as well.

If everyone picked HF armies it would be great no manouvre just an honest fight in the middle once again like those other set of rules.

What is so good about these rules and many have said so is the ability of troops to skirmish properly, take that away and you'll lose something quite exciting about FOG.

madaxeman wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: Alternatively, play on narrower tables.

..or with more points ?

Or only play with HF armies.

grahambriggs wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Perceived Problem
Armies having a large number of very small and manoeuvrable BG are hard to beat in competition time scale.

(I don't think this is a massive problem, but it does make it harder against better or equally good players. There is less of a swing in fortune losing 1 BG of 18 than 1 of 12.)

Do we need a solution?

I think this one needs a solution, or perhaps two. To me, the biggest issue is the sort of armies you see that are mostly skirmishers. the skirmishers are difficult to pin down and can quite frequently just evade off table when in trouble. They make for a bit of a dull game. Of course you can fan out and push them back but there's usually something tough around that stops you - often there's 2-3 BGs of knights and the rest are skirmishers.

While this might be a historical result against the 'swarm of horse archer' armies, it's dull and we're seeing far more BGs of skirmishers than there were historically.

Solutions? Perhaps a BG of 4 LH or 4 or 6 LF counts as only a half towards army size?

Introduce a 'unit cost' to be added to the points cost - probably causes more problems with the balances in the rules.

Alternatively, play on narrower tables. 800 point FoG has the same 'wide open spaces' feel that 350 point DBM had. The problem is that there's too much table to cover for most armies. That wouldn't need a rule change, so that would make most sense to me/

The Roman swarm issue is similar in some respects, and equally dull to play against

That seems to overcompensate. Honestly I don't even think it is really a rule issue. IMO it's partly an army list issue and partly a problem with the scoring system. So the solutions should be looked for in those areas (probably trying the scoring system 1st, as it's the simplest and least invasive change).

madaxeman wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Having to test not to charge even though you know you are going to be charged in the flank or rear.
I find it peculiar that everybody accepts this. Its seems very unrealistic, "The enemy are behind us sir", "it doesn't matter sergeant we will charge anyway and be taken from the rear" (officers huh), but everybody knows the rules and just gets on with it. It does have the advantage of speeding up the game though
Is it a problem is there a solution?

I always though that this was essentially just that one particular combination of "charger" and "intercept charger" has been missed off the "its a reason not to have to test to charge" list. Fairly easy to add back in.

Not sure it should make you immune to having to charge, maybe just giving an extra +1 or +2 on the test would be better, but your solution has the advantage of simplicity. OTOH I'm not sure I agree that there is a problem to start with, the simple solution is to keep your shock troops out of such situations (remember the simple things are always hard).

madaxeman wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Problem
Threatened BG with the capability to evade near the table edge evade off table for the loss of only 1AP. If they stayed on table they would most likely cost their owner 2AP for being routed. This makes large skirmish armies very difficult to beat, and after evading they are lost to the battle anyway.
Whats the Solution, is it a problem?

They all count as 2AP if your baggage is eaten. Simple and quite fun.

I really like that solution, also gives some incentive to use fortified camps, which are underrepresented currently.

madaxeman wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Perceived Problem
Player chooses a road and river and places them at table edge to reduce the amount of terrain that can be placed on the table by the opponent. (I don't think there is anything wrong with this personally, obviously lots of others do) Whats the Solution?

Roads placed last (aesthetically) or Terrain can be placed on top of already deployed roads. Either really.

Again I find I agree with Tim, this is starting to become somewhat scary.

philqw78 wrote:Problem
Threatened BG with the capability to evade near the table edge evade off table for the loss of only 1AP. If they stayed on table they would most likely cost their owner 2AP for being routed. This makes large skirmish armies very difficult to beat, and after evading they are lost to the battle anyway.

Whats the Solution, is it a problem?

Require a CMT to evade off the board.
Gino
SMAC