Slitherine

Hi everyone

Well, I've been thinking that creating something like a Mini FoG could be a new way, maybe a good one, to introduce new players to the game. Maybe you have some friends who like it, but don't like to spend so much money on miniatures, maybe they play other games (DBA, Warhammer, whatever) so starting to build another huge army isn't a good idea for them, or any other reason.

So I thought about making, not new rules or anything, but maybe some special things to be able to play with an army of 350 points. So, this would be my idea;

350 Point FoG lists:

- Field Commander is compulsory (it would be like 300 FoG list with a free FC), you can upgrade him to Inspired paying the difference, or downgrade him recieving refund money.
- You can have just one more commander (TC, FC... IC?)
- Minimas and maximas halved, rounded up.
- Minimas of 6 infantry or 4 Cavalry disappear.

But I have yet to get some advices from experienced players...

What about halving the minimum number of bases per BG? Good or bad idea? That way you can have more BGs, and make it more strategical maybe?
Should minimas and maximas stay the same?
What do you think about the supression of the 4 minimum bases of cav, and 6 minimum bases of infantry?
Any more thoughts on this?
Anybody ever tried something like this?

Two example lists (in fact I think both are like 361 points, but well...):

Ayyubid Egyptian 350 points:
- FC
- TC
4 Mamluks
4 Mamluks
4 Armoured Lancers
4 Bedouin Lancers
4 Turcopoles

Later Crusader 350 points:
- FC
- TC
4 Military Order Knights (Templars) (armoured)
4 Other Knights (armoured)
6 Other Spearmen (protected)
6 Other Spearmen (protected)
6 Other Crossbowmen

Well, thanks in advance!

We tried this in 400, halving all minima with the proviso that a bg cannot be smaller than a minimum 4 if that was the full minimum.

And mini-fog should be called mist.

Scrumpy wrote:We tried this in 400, halving all minima with the proviso that a bg cannot be smaller than a minimum 4 if that was the full minimum.

And mini-fog should be called mist.

So, you used smaller BGs than normal... did it worked?

I didn't got that last part

So, what do you think about it? Is it viable? Is it really FoG? Is it fun?

Thanks for the answer

Scrumpy wrote: And mini-fog should be called mist.

He was just joking. A small fog is a mist.

I have tried another thing. Keeping the BG size and using the half of BGs, around the same number of points as you suggest, with just two FC, one per side. I just tried to have a variety of BG on the table to make the game more interesting. If you do the BG too small they will break very easily and combats won't last much. In fact impact troops might have more benefits than melee troops. The other problem is also possible. If Bg deteriorate, you might have some stupid combats with a few dice in play, so that nothing happens.

I don't think there would be much point in playing with only around 5 BGs. I think if you want a mini-FOG you still need the same number of BGs, just with less bases. And then you need to change the rules on death rolls and autobreaks so that BGs don't dissapear so quickly with less bases.
I think it's doable, but rules changes rather than just army list changes would be required if you still want it to feel like a proper FOG battle.

Hi

I suspect this idea is more viable with lower points cost armies than high ones. The examples above yield armies with just 5BG each. A Viking army at 350 points has 6 BG and if you go to 400, 7.

I am going to try the 400 point idea at my local club.

Pete

The smallest format I have run in tournaments is 650 points on a 5' by 3' table. I have also played games with starter armies (600 points). Both these formats work well and produce shorter games than the more normal 800+ point ones.

Dropping points to 400 you might want to perhaps reduce the BG sizes by 2 bases (not halving, just -2 on the minimum with obviously a minimum of 2 bases).

I guess I was a bit slow with the mist joke , but english is not my first language

I like the idea of reducing each BG by 2 bases. It would leave "horde" or "barbarian" armies with mostly 6 bases per BG, and still increase the total number of BGs by a lot.

So, what about doubling the numer of dices each BG gets, but also doubling the number of hits needed to cause any test and all that stuff? Could it work? Like treating each BG as if it was 100% bigger

Anyone else tried this?

Thanks again to everyone!

Valhalla wrote:I guess I was a bit slow with the mist joke , but english is not my first language

I like the idea of reducing each BG by 2 bases. It would leave "horde" or "barbarian" armies with mostly 6 bases per BG, and still increase the total number of BGs by a lot.

So, what about doubling the numer of dices each BG gets, but also doubling the number of hits needed to cause any test and all that stuff? Could it work? Like treating each BG as if it was 100% bigger

Anyone else tried this?

Thanks again to everyone!

The problem you would encounter with doubling the number of dice is you increase the chances of bases being removed and if yo have smaller (2 base especially) BGs then losing a base is not good.

I would start just trying reducing the minimum BG size by 2 bases and halving or thereabouts list minima. but playing all the other rules the same.

We have been playing around with the same idea and it is working well.
400 points per army
Free FC
Minimum of the list halved.
Still getting good size armies averaging around 8 BG's

Mid Republic Roman (11 BG's)
FC + TC
4 x 4 Legions (Avg)
2 x 2 Triarii (Sup)
2 x 4 LF Prot LgtSp Sw
1 x 6 MF Prot Avg Drilled OffSp
1 x 4 LF Sup Bow
1 x 6 LF Avg Sling

Hi ,

try to play some games with starter armies and you will surely find what you expect ;

as said Hammy
we played some games in France with starters and it works very well to learn the basics ;
hope it will help ;

Regards

thefrenchjester " start and go to FOG world "

Valhalla wrote:So, what about doubling the numer of dices each BG gets, but also doubling the number of hits needed to cause any test and all that stuff? Could it work? Like treating each BG as if it was 100% bigger

I think something like this could work. Count each base (except knights, elephants, chariots, etc) as two bases, one behind the other. They fight with 2 dice at impact and 2 in melee. POAs are worked out as if 2 deep (for spears, pikes, etc). Each base has 2 hits. When a BG takes one hit it is marked with a casualty marker, then when anothe hit is taken the base is removed.

sadista wrote:We have been playing around with the same idea and it is working well.
400 points per army
Free FC
Minimum of the list halved.
Still getting good size armies averaging around 8 BG's

Mid Republic Roman (11 BG's)
FC + TC
4 x 4 Legions (Avg)
2 x 2 Triarii (Sup)
2 x 4 LF Prot LgtSp Sw
1 x 6 MF Prot Avg Drilled OffSp
1 x 4 LF Sup Bow
1 x 6 LF Avg Sling

I like this idea. Overall, it is all about teaching people how to play. If you change the rules they will get confused later, in their first "big" game. It is true that maybe a kind of DBA game might be needed to let people "get seduced" by Ancient Wargaming, but I think that, by now, for those purposes, FoG is not your game. Maybe it can be developed but I am sure it won't be just changing a few things. For example, DBA compared to DBM is a whole different game with some basics in common.

Polkovnik wrote:

Valhalla wrote:So, what about doubling the numer of dices each BG gets, but also doubling the number of hits needed to cause any test and all that stuff? Could it work? Like treating each BG as if it was 100% bigger

I think something like this could work. Count each base (except knights, elephants, chariots, etc) as two bases, one behind the other. They fight with 2 dice at impact and 2 in melee. POAs are worked out as if 2 deep (for spears, pikes, etc). Each base has 2 hits. When a BG takes one hit it is marked with a casualty marker, then when anothe hit is taken the base is removed.

That would work well to reduce the required figure count. It isn't going to reduce the playing time though.

I was thinking of going in a different direction in regards to mini-FoG.

How about thinking in terms of figures instead of stands? Each BG is always 2 stands. Therefore, a HF BG would be 8 figures strong, always. A Cav BG would be 6 figures strong. A LH would be 4 figures strong. Death Dice would inflict figure based casualties - not stands.

A BG of Spartan hoplites would be 2 stands in a single rank and would get 8 dice in impact and 8 dice in melee. The whole unit would cost 104 points (8 figures times 13 points per figure).

I played a game like this yesterday between a Spartan and a Early Ach Persian on a 2' x 2' area. The Spartans had 22 stands and the Persians had 19. Overall, the game played easily. However, it did cause a few problems:
1) Need some way of interpreting army lists since BGs are forced to be certain sizes.
2) I used centimeters as MUs instead of inches.
3) I had to say that only one figure counts in overlap - not the whole stand.
4) When a stand touches another at an angle in impact, all the figures in that stand fight.
5) Need a way to mark casualties until enough casualties are inflicted to remove a whole stand.

Sounds like you have just invented the old WRG rules

Woops. I really didn't know that FoG was closely related to WRG

Well, other than the main author...maybe I should pick up a copy just out of curiosity.

Scrumpy wrote: And mini-fog should be called mist.

Or PoG... Paddock of Glory

Saurocet wrote:Woops. I really didn't know that FoG was closely related to WRG

Well, other than the main author...maybe I should pick up a copy just out of curiosity.

It is not that close but there are distinct similarities in the overall feel.

WRG 7th is a much more complex game than FoG IMO and there is a lot more calculation involved in combat as well as loads of modifiers to morale (cohesion) tests. The reinventing WRG comment was I think mainly aimed at your overlap rules.

I seem to remember that in WRG 7th you got one figure of overlap on the shielded flank and three on the unshielded but I may well be wrong.

hammy wrote:

Saurocet wrote:Woops. I really didn't know that FoG was closely related to WRG

Well, other than the main author...maybe I should pick up a copy just out of curiosity.

It is not that close but there are distinct similarities in the overall feel.

WRG 7th is a much more complex game than FoG IMO and there is a lot more calculation involved in combat as well as loads of modifiers to morale (cohesion) tests. The reinventing WRG comment was I think mainly aimed at your overlap rules.

I seem to remember that in WRG 7th you got one figure of overlap on the shielded flank and three on the unshielded but I may well be wrong.

Bingo! We have a winner for remembering overlap rules for WRG 6th (and previous). I think it changed for seventh to one overlapper for both. I suspect the original WRG comment was due to reverting to removing/killing/fighting with individual figures rather than to the details of the overlap rules.

Chris