Change to FoG Game design - Are we stuck in a time warp?

[hoodlum]

THe Overall game mechanism for FoG seems to focus primarily on 3.30 to 4 hour game on a 6x4 table using 800 points.

THis seems to be similar to another rules set that one dare not name. ie x number of points for a 3.30 - 4.00 hour game in a competition setting. This has been the design for a number of years 15? Is this format old fashioned given the other options available to people and less time available to people now.

The question is this still what people want? In my club people are drifting more towards FoW and other games that are less time consuming. In another club their local competition the DBA competition had more interest and participants than 800 point FoG competition. This can also be seen in golf clubs in my part of the world where shorter games are provided due to a lack of interest in playing a full 18 holes. Indeed the 600 point comps that we have run have been more popular and well received than the 800 point open comps.

So instead of changes to the 800 point game - should we not be looking at a shorter simpler version of the game. This can be seen as a feeder game for people to start into full FoG. Furthermore, how many grand scale battles were fought ? Alexander fought how many - 6? So shouldn't we focus on the smaller scale fights if we are concerned with being historical?

Peter

[nikgaukroger]

IMO the rules changes being contemplated are relevant to games at a wide ranges of points values (600 - 1000), so no need to concentrate on any in particular. People can then play at the points level that suits them or, indeed, not use the points system at all

[hoodlum]

Sorry Nik

Got to disagree with you there. What I am pointing out is that it appears that people are less willing to spend 3 - 4 hours playing a game now. I don't think the game mechanics as they currently stand or as proposed and using 600 points is going to cut it.

Sure people can create their own club rules to create a mini version but then these just become club events.

Essentially, when dbm first came out - 20 years ago the format was the norm, since then we have had FoW and Gw systems developed shorter games and less troops and this has become more popular.

If we continue with an old fashioned games system will we just end up with a bunch of grumpy old men playing?

[hammy]

I am aware of a number of attempts to make a DBA equivalent for FoG. It is nowhere near as easy as you might thing.

DBA was designed to be a fast simple game. DBM is a development of DBA that introduces extra layers of complexity and more troops to make a longer game.

FoG was designed from the outset to fit the 3-4 hour game slot. Changing the rules to streamline things is just not easy. Essentially the systems as they stand are pretty bare bones so cutting things down needs one or more mechanisms to be discarded or at the very least radically altered.

I would love there to be an intro version of FoG but so far I have not seen anything that works. It would be great to have a game that worked on a similar scale to DBA (which BTW is still supposed to represent a grand battle and not a skirmish) just to lower the entry point for new players to 12 or so bases rather than 60.

If you want shorter games then playing with fewer points and smaller tables works just fine with the rules as they stand. Over the last couple of years I have run five 650 point tournaments and their popularity is growing. A 650 point game takes about 2 1/2 hours so not massively shorter than 800 but still shorter.

A lot depends on the club. My local club which plays several different rules almost always has more FoG games than any other rule set. Most of the FOW players have drifted to FOG which can make getting a FOW game hard work.

[shall]

The rules were originally designed for 650pt starter battles as per the two in the rule book. Takes abut 2 1/2 hours.

Several such tournies have been very successful.

Rules also work for large games - did 4500pts a side at one point.

So to me the main issue with time is changing the game/table combination rather than the rules.

We did play around with a simplified version but felt it lost oo much of the good character of the game - hence preferring smaller games instead when less time.

But any thoughts that would create a DBA equivalent most welcome.

Si

[azrael86]

Apart from less figures, the other thing to consider is that FoG is a very dice-intensive game. Consider:

Under FOG, a bg will often roll three or four dice each turn to shoot: under other systems this would have been two
In combat, usually each side rolls at least 4 dice at impact, and at least as many again in melee. Under other systems this would often have been two
then there are rerolls, which affect probably half the units involved, meaning that any four dice roll is likely to actually need at least one reroll.

Similraly CT's and CMT's have the reroll issue.

So, if two bg's (say 4 fr kn and 6 eng lb) engage, you have something like:

Kn move to charge range: LB shoot - rolling 4 dice: if they hit then probably there is a test (2+ dice) and maybe a death roll
LB shoot again, same
charge (assuming they are OK) at impact the french roll 4 dice( with rerolls), the english 6.
Unless it is a draw then there is a test 2, poss rerolls, death roll each
So far then we've rolled at least 18 dice, and in all probability more like 30. Add in complex combats and matching up dice colours, and it is non trivial.

A solution would be to remove the concept of hits, and to just do the tests, with factors adjusted for the enemy somehow. So in the above, the french would take two tests for being shot at, then each side in impact would test, with modifiers based on the matchup. In some respects this already happens, for instance you win a combat 4-1 and the test is an 11 - tests far outweigh combat dice in their effect.

[nikgaukroger]

Sorry Nik

Got to disagree with you there. What I am pointing out is that it appears that people are less willing to spend 3 - 4 hours playing a game now. I don't think the game mechanics as they currently stand or as proposed and using 600 points is going to cut it.

Sure people can create their own club rules to create a mini version but then these just become club events.

Essentially, when dbm first came out - 20 years ago the format was the norm, since then we have had FoW and Gw systems developed shorter games and less troops and this has become more popular.

If we continue with an old fashioned games system will we just end up with a bunch of grumpy old men playing?

Well IMO if you want a shorter game of FoG use 600/650 as they play out in around the same time as a FoW game - Hammy's 650 point comps prove that admirably (and the tweaks involved for that could usefully be incorporated into a v2 rule book). No need for any fundamental change in the game system for this, the rules work just as well.

If it is fundamentally the game system you feel ned changing then, I fear, this is not the right forum for that. Hey, if you think there is a gap in the market perhaps it is your opportunity to develop the game to fill it There is no such thing as a universal rule set that will appeal to all after all.

[hammy]

Apart from less figures, the other thing to consider is that FoG is a very dice-intensive game. Consider:

Under FOG, a bg will often roll three or four dice each turn to shoot: under other systems this would have been two

While this may be true it takes no longer to roll 4 dice than it does to roll 1. Rerolls do slow things slightly and post combat tests do so as well. That said in DBM for example you roll combats base by base along the line and there are outcomes to consider after each combat. So we both roll, we compare our dice plus modifiers, decide the outcome, remove or recoil the losing base, possibly advance the base that won and then move on to the next combat.

I don't think that rolling multiple dice or rolling dice more than once makes that much difference to the playing time of the game.

If there is ever going to be a streamlined FoG a significant number of mechanisms will have to go. For a start I would say that quality and training need to be removed. Next for the chop would be either cohesion or base removal but it would probably end up that the two mechanisms end up combined into one single meta mechanism. Dice removal probably needs to go as well so you are always rolling the same number of dice. The CMT system needs simplifying and it may be that you do away with measured movement and end up playing on a grid. Another candidate for deletion although I really like this rule is the single rank cavalry evade. Commanders probably need simplifying or even deleting.
Once all that lot is thrown out you will have a faster game but would it be FoG? That is the question.

[Jilu]

it seems to me that you are seeking another concept of rules, the french have one that is faster a mix between DBM and FOG. However Armylists are oldfashioned, and the rules are imperfect.

Or what you can do is reduce table debt and play 600-650 points. Less units less mouvement means faster game

[pcelella]

One of the things done in FoW tournaments that speeds up play is the use of pre-set terrain. I certainly think that this is an option that can be considered for FoG tournaments.

Peter C
Sword and Sandal Gaming Blog
http://swordandsandalgaming.blogspot.com/

[hammy]

One of the things done in FoW tournaments that speeds up play is the use of pre-set terrain. I certainly think that this is an option that can be considered for FoG tournaments.

Preset terrain would save a little time but it is only going to be 5 minutes per game at most I would have thought.

What preset terrain would however do is potentially encourage prettier terrain which would make our battles look a lot nicer. The bane of Ancients gaming is the nasty bits of felt or whatever for terrain. When I play FoG at the local club (where most people are WFB and 40K types) we barely get a sideways glance or any interest. When we play FoW with decent terrain we have loads of people wander over to ask about the game and say how pretty it looks. The same is the case for tournament terain. There is a reason that the first set of tables in the main hall at Britcon are always the FoW ones....

[shall]

Basically you have to change the game a fair bit, with changes such as:

Scrap cohesion and just have death rolls and autobreaks
Standardise unit types and sizes 4s for mtd and 6s for Drilled foot 8s for UD foot
Limit movement options and have CMTs for undrilled only

When I tried variants of this I felt I would rather use the full rules with less points if I only had 2 hours.

Si

[prb4]

There is nothing to stop people using less than 600 points.

I have played around with 350 point games.
The rules also also seems to work fine for this size as well, although I tweaked a few things such as:

- Used a 4 foot by 3 foot table.
- The compulsary piece cannot be double sized
- Only 2 additional pieces of terrain per side
- Only 1 general is compulsary
- I ignored the minimums in the army lists and just made representative armies.
- The camp is only worth 1 AP

The only problem I have found with 350 point games is that some army lists have too many compulsary troops to make a "legal" balanced army.

The table width could probably be reduced further although the terrain rules would start to fail.

The games don't take long to play either!

[azrael86]

I guess the question is probably not so much whether a shorter game is needed, as whether a simpler game is useful. To be honest, this can probably be judged best by looking at DBA. The objective is to make a game that is accessible, and draws people in, which FoG doesn't.

The strongest thing about DBA was that it was cheap - rules and figures could be bought for around £20-25. With FoG, that entry point is more like £250.

Although whether DBA really brought people to DBM I don't know.

[nikgaukroger]

Although whether DBA really brought people to DBM I don't know.

Initially yes, in large numbers - mainly because DBA appeared before DBM and DBM was developed out of it due to demand After that I think there was a small but steady trickle of people who tried DBA and then wanted to play with more toys so moved up to DBM.

[azrael86]

Although whether DBA really brought people to DBM I don't know.

Initially yes, in large numbers - mainly because DBA appeared before DBM and DBM was developed out of it due to demand After that I think there was a small but steady trickle of people who tried DBA and then wanted to play with more toys so moved up to DBM.

So they weren't 6th/7th ed migrants but new blood?

[nikgaukroger]

Although whether DBA really brought people to DBM I don't know.

Initially yes, in large numbers - mainly because DBA appeared before DBM and DBM was developed out of it due to demand After that I think there was a small but steady trickle of people who tried DBA and then wanted to play with more toys so moved up to DBM.

So they weren't 6th/7th ed migrants but new blood?

I suspect a lot had previously played 6th/7th - and many others migrated direct from those without ever trying DBA.

[azrael86]

So probably not then. A pity, as there would seem to be an opportunity somewhere to offer a game without a 100 page rulebook that might engage more youngsters who presently end up in warhammer.

[hammy]

I guess the question is probably not so much whether a shorter game is needed, as whether a simpler game is useful. To be honest, this can probably be judged best by looking at DBA. The objective is to make a game that is accessible, and draws people in, which FoG doesn't.

The strongest thing about DBA was that it was cheap - rules and figures could be bought for around £20-25. With FoG, that entry point is more like £250.

Although whether DBA really brought people to DBM I don't know.

I agree 100%. If a FoG lite (should we call it MIST?) was available I would gladly use it to drag in new players.

DBA was a really rather radical departure in Ancients when it first appeared. In my case DBA brought me back to Ancients after I had been totally turned off by the fiddlyness of 7th. Having played DBA I fairly rapidly wanted a more complex game and that desire just happened to coincide with DBM hitting the street and as a result of DBA I played well over 1000 games of DBM and my life changes fairly radically.

If it was easy to write a good MIST I am pretty sure that it would be there now. It needs major surgery to reduce the play time of FoG to a 1 hour slot and to reduce the nukmber of figures needed.

[Strategos69]

So probably not then. A pity, as there would seem to be an opportunity somewhere to offer a game without a 100 page rulebook that might engage more youngsters who presently end up in warhammer.

A friend of mine who was curious about how I played with the miniatures asked me to prepare a game for her to try it. When she saw the rulebook and the perspective of at least an hour of explanations, she thought it might not be such a good idea to give it a try. I also think that a simplified versions would really be helpful to explain to newcomers.

By the way, Warhammer is not as simple as it might seem if you add all the suplements, but it is a game with basic rules and some advanced and it really helps to get into it that way.