Slitherine

Lots of great suggestions coming in but I'll repost an earlier plea from me.

FOG plays really well. There are some things that could be improved but please don't throw the baby out with bath water.

I was going to make a similar post. I'm hoping for some small tweaks rather than big changes

I agree.

Small changes are ok but FOG is a very good game. No big changes please !.

Lionel

petedalby wrote:Lots of great suggestions coming in but I'll repost an earlier plea from me.

FOG plays really well. There are some things that could be improved but please don't throw the baby out with bath water.

Hear! Hear!

shadowdragon wrote:

petedalby wrote:Lots of great suggestions coming in but I'll repost an earlier plea from me.

FOG plays really well. There are some things that could be improved but please don't throw the baby out with bath water.

Hear! Hear!

Soup anyone

philqw78 wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:

petedalby wrote:Lots of great suggestions coming in but I'll repost an earlier plea from me.

FOG plays really well. There are some things that could be improved but please don't throw the baby out with bath water.

Hear! Hear!

Soup anyone

Uh....Here! Here!

I agree. The game is omost definitely not broken but there are a few areas where it could be 'improved' from a historical PoV and a couple of areas where the 'game' is getting in the way of the 'wargame'.

Based on the few tea leaves to be read. I suspect the rule fixes will be mostly evolutionary and fixes not revolutionary.

I have been a bit worried by some of the ideas that people are coming up with. I to feel FOG is a great game that could be damaged if too many changes are put in place.

david53 wrote:I have been a bit worried by some of the ideas that people are coming up with. I to feel FOG is a great game that could be damaged if too many changes are put in place.

Just because one person suggests an idea it does not mean something will change. If lots of people see an area where there is an 'issue' then something may change to address that issue.

I argee whith Pete ( hello Pete ) and whith Lionel . For me there is only one rule to change: Interpenetration.

There are clearly a fewer areas that need tightening and where the authors got intentions and written word wrong.

And little things like minor point shifts or all CMTs being an 8 or whatever are not revolutionary.

I enjoy the game as it is, granted it could use a few tweaks but what game can't? It got me back into ancients after about 20 years of not doing ancients, had to redo my army as I had sold off my old stuff years ago. Now FOG R has got me doing Renaissance........egads. Something that does that to you can't be all that bad now can it?

I'm sure the authors will make up there own minds as to what to change. This sort of forum is good for coming up with ideas; but I'd expect most of them not to be adopted.

While many will want only gradual change, we are of course a set of people who by and large like the rules as they are. There's a significant number who don't like the rules, but could be tempted back if changes are made.

Also there's a practical argument. They'll change the rulebook, not the lists (to much work, too much cost for players) - I suppose points values changes could be done just in the rule book. But if you expect the average player to purchase the new edition they will want sufficient change to make that worthwhile.

Personally, I'd like changes to stop benny hill, and to make it less easy to run away from the enemy. Plus encouragement of some of the troop types that are currently poor value (make hem cheaper or better).

I imagine most of this is water under the bridge, as they've been looking at this for some time and the owners will have set a timescale for the new rules to be completed.