philosophy behind the 12" 'zone of death'

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:25 am

Hi all,

I recently played a game of FoG:R using a 5'x3' table with 650 points.

All up, I think the game worked, but I'm just wondering at the philosophy of the 12" -1 and no deployment for foot.

Naturally, playing on 5' tables mean you only have 3' of 'safe' zone as opposed to 4', which is quite a reduction... however, reducing in to 8" is a 'rules change' and I don't like doing that as often the philosophy of a rule has been well thought out.

In this case, I think it's to get the wings a more 'mounted feel'.

What are people's thoughts?

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:33 pm

It does a few things that are historical.

1) Mounted straight into pike and shot is not a pleasant experience.
2) Historical moutned operated on the flanks.
3) If players were allowed they would deploy one edge of their foot force against the table and mounted would have issues.

So I think it was preserving the histroical feel and encouraging historical behavior. And it works.

Good point on 5x3
I would experiment by going ot 10 MU flank zones. You've reduce the board by 1/6th reduce the zones by 1/6th.

Aryaman · Post by **Aryaman** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:46 am

hazelbark wrote: 2) Historical moutned operated on the flanks.
.

That is not correct, historically mounted forces in this period operated as much intermixed with infantry along the whole the line as massed on the flanks

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:26 am

hazelbark wrote:It does a few things that are historical.

1) Mounted straight into pike and shot is not a pleasant experience.
2) Historical moutned operated on the flanks.
3) If players were allowed they would deploy one edge of their foot force against the table and mounted would have issues.

So I think it was preserving the histroical feel and encouraging historical behavior. And it works.

Good point on 5x3
I would experiment by going ot 10 MU flank zones. You've reduce the board by 1/6th reduce the zones by 1/6th.

Yeah, I think 10" would be good.

10" almost gives you two BG's of mounted side by side with a 1 element wide gap between if they were in 3bases forward 1base in reserve formation (which I think is pretty typical formation of Impact Mounted etc), and gives the foot 4 extra inches overall to play with. No puns please.

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:40 am

Aryaman wrote:
hazelbark wrote: 2) Historical moutned operated on the flanks.
.
That is not correct, historically mounted forces in this period operated as much intermixed with infantry along the whole the line as massed on the flanks

OK- "historically, infantry operated in the center and not on the flanks"

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:56 pm

madaxeman wrote:
Aryaman wrote:
hazelbark wrote: 2) Historical moutned operated on the flanks.
.
That is not correct, historically mounted forces in this period operated as much intermixed with infantry along the whole the line as massed on the flanks
OK- "historically, infantry operated in the center and not on the flanks"

Thank you for revising my remarks.