Slitherine

A member of my club has organised an in-club tournament for 650 pt armies. We are fighting with 15mm figures on a 4 ft x 3 ft table, with the terrain, etc reduced in proportion.

Somewhat to our surprise we have found that this gives a markedly better game than 800 pts on a 6 ft table, which has become something of a UK standard. With proper battle-lines clashing it feels more like a grand battle. Whereas 800 pts on a 6 ft table often feels more like a skirmish, with individual units wheeling off into the void. The smaller table largely eliminates the, much-derided, Benny Hill stage. The games are a better test of player skill, as there is less time and space in which to correct errors. They are also more likely to give a definite result, rather than to peter-out into a draw.

The smaller, more easily-raised, armies have encouraged new players to try Fog. While veterans of the older DBM rules have been able to dust-off armies, without needing to add figures.

I'm not sure whether it is the smaller armies as such or the increased density of troops per square foot that does most to improve the game. My guess is that it is the latter, as we have also found that 900 pts works better than 800 pts when playing on 6 ft tables.

I wd be interested in hearing whether others have also found that smaller is better?

Played at Expo on Saturday, 650ap but 5fy by 3ft (so 1ft deeper than yours). I enjoy it very much as you get into the action much sooner.

Steve

acl wrote:A member of my club has organised an in-club tournament for 650 pt armies. We are fighting with 15mm figures on a 4 ft x 3 ft table, with the terrain, etc reduced in proportion.

Somewhat to our surprise we have found that this gives a markedly better game than 800 pts on a 6 ft table, which has become something of a UK standard. With proper battle-lines clashing it feels more like a grand battle. Whereas 800 pts on a 6 ft table often feels more like a skirmish, with individual units wheeling off into the void. The smaller table largely eliminates the, much-derided, Benny Hill stage. The games are a better test of player skill, as there is less time and space in which to correct errors. They are also more likely to give a definite result, rather than to peter-out into a draw.

The smaller, more easily-raised, armies have encouraged new players to try Fog. While veterans of the older DBM rules have been able to dust-off armies, without needing to add figures.

I'm not sure whether it is the smaller armies as such or the increased density of troops per square foot that does most to improve the game. My guess is that it is the latter, as we have also found that 900 pts works better than 800 pts when playing on 6 ft tables.

I wd be interested in hearing whether others have also found that smaller is better?

The 650 point game on a five by three table has been around the UK for the last three years. I among many others find this makes for a better game.

There is still room to move about arrange yourself for the battle which due to the width will come quicker than the standard 6 by 4 table.

I like the 650 points as it gives a much more chance of finishing in the 2 and 1/2 hours time limit.

It might be a bit of a problum for mass knights armies as 650 points is'nt that much when you take Generals out.

Dave

I'm not disagreeing with you about what makes for a good and enjoyable game.

This bit however leaves plenty of room for argument:

>The games are a better test of player skill, as there is less time and space in which to correct errors.

Depends really on how you define "skill". Getting your initial deployment right? Minimal manoeuvre but taking advantage of good matchups and making sure to roll decent dice? Or out manoeuvring your opponent over an extended period, possibly with move and countermove as they manage to extract themselves from earlier errors but you use the time to create new problems for them to face.

acl wrote:The smaller table largely eliminates the, much-derided, Benny Hill stage.

To me it’s not benny hill, if your army has lost out in the dice stage, and who can honestly say they have just sat there and let their opponent take the last point needed to break your army.

It just human nature, not to want to lose or else why play a competitive hobby.

I do think there should be a chance for the 650 point game to be given a run out at one of the larger UK FOG events.

Dave

The 650 point game on a five by three table has been around the UK for the last three years. I among many others find this makes for a better game.

I've played a few of these, I would say it makes a different game rather than a better one. The reduced depth makes infantry based armies more viable, but I also like the opportunity to get a larger army on table that the 800/900 point game gives.

Mabe 800 points on a 6x3 would be worth trying?

david53 wrote:
I do think there should be a chance for the 650 point game to be given a run out at one of the larger UK FOG events.

Dave

The 25mm competition at Britcon uses 650 point armies on a 6x4 foot table. MUs are still 1-inch, so you don't close the range any quicker, but the table is only 30 base-widths wide. A 5x3 table for a 15mm game is 37.5 base widths wide.

So not quite the same effect, but still quicker playing than a standard 800pt game on a 6x4

peteratjet wrote:

david53 wrote:
I do think there should be a chance for the 650 point game to be given a run out at one of the larger UK FOG events.

Dave

The 25mm competition at Britcon uses 650 point armies on a 6x4 foot table. MUs are still 1-inch, so you don't close the range any quicker, but the table is only 30 base-widths wide. A 5x3 table for a 15mm game is 37.5 base widths wide.

So not quite the same effect, but still quicker playing than a standard 800pt game on a 6x4

Yes, players have said that it feels more like a 25mm game. I can understand now why people make the effort to paint the larger figures up.

Its a different game. Faster makes more fun and less brain ache, but to me not as satisfying.

We play 700 points on 5' by 3' as our standard game. That allows us to get a game finished in an evening.

david53 wrote:

acl wrote:The smaller table largely eliminates the, much-derided, Benny Hill stage.

To me it’s not benny hill, if your army has lost out in the dice stage, and who can honestly say they have just sat there and let their opponent take the last point needed to break your army.

It just human nature, not to want to lose or else why play a competitive hobby.


Dave

Yes, it is human nature and that is the problem.

If all you are doing is running away to avoid losing the last point needed to reach the rules-defined army rout, then for all practical purposes your army is already in rout. It just happens not to have left the table yet.

We are near half-way through a friendly in-club tournament using this format and it is working splendidly. Most of the club have joined-in, inc some who have not tried Fog before. The smaller forces make it easier for them to buy/ borrow an army.

I don't think we've had a duff game yet - certainly I've not experienced one.

Alan

acl wrote:

peteratjet wrote:

david53 wrote:
I do think there should be a chance for the 650 point game to be given a run out at one of the larger UK FOG events.

Dave

The 25mm competition at Britcon uses 650 point armies on a 6x4 foot table. MUs are still 1-inch, so you don't close the range any quicker, but the table is only 30 base-widths wide. A 5x3 table for a 15mm game is 37.5 base widths wide.

So not quite the same effect, but still quicker playing than a standard 800pt game on a 6x4

Yes, players have said that it feels more like a 25mm game. I can understand now why people make the effort to paint the larger figures up.

Having played a lot of 25mm it is interesting that most of the items up for review in FOG V2 are not issues in 25mm games. Can't ever remember chasing LH armies around the table - mainly because they don't get used often. Certainly haven't seen any get amongst the places in competitions.


Cheers.......Geoff

Didn't RJC win one of the bigger tournaments over the past year with Mongols in 25mm?

ShrubMiK wrote:Didn't RJC win one of the bigger tournaments over the past year with Mongols in 25mm?

Do you mean a 28mm comp?

Well if you are going to be pedantic yes indeedy

No, I just meant a bigger 25mm competition

Hi

We have just completed a tournament in Wellington NZ.

We played 600 points on 5 by 3 tables. There were 20 games in the tournament of 2 and half hours.

All games resulted in an army broken - and the feedback was that people enjoyed the games a great deal.

Hi

We have just completed a tournament in Wellington NZ.

We played 600 points on 5 by 3 tables. There were 20 games in the tournament of 2 and half hours.

All games resulted in an army broken - and the feedback was that people enjoyed the games a great deal.

peteratjet wrote:

david53 wrote:
I do think there should be a chance for the 650 point game to be given a run out at one of the larger UK FOG events.

Dave

The 25mm competition at Britcon uses 650 point armies on a 6x4 foot table. MUs are still 1-inch, so you don't close the range any quicker, but the table is only 30 base-widths wide. A 5x3 table for a 15mm game is 37.5 base widths wide.

So not quite the same effect, but still quicker playing than a standard 800pt game on a 6x4

............ This is how we most often play. That is 650 point armies on a 6x4 table (28mm). At 650 points and on this size table we find our games feel historic as we play them, look historic and we almost always finish per the rules within a couple of hours. 650 point armies also make you focus on the strength of the army (from the list) .... so the army relies on its core troops more than in larger games. A fact that makes FoG and the lists so good IMHO.

But we are not tournament players ... so we focus on the fun of the historical play of the game rather than "other" stuff. Playing outside the tournament setting and with smaller tables and armies ... we have not experienced many of the problems V2 is trying to fix.

Smaller armies on smaller tables would eliminate many (but not all) of the needed changes to V1.

Mike B