Slitherine

Hi

Had quick solo test of FOG today using Maurikian Byzantines vs Sassanid Persian

Initial layout of terrain and troops as per pic :



EDIT - Hmm cant seem to get pic to appear try viewing at my Blog http://sgtsteiner.blogspot.com/

My thoughts re rules (some may be contradictory) :

Positives :
Clear and readable (no headache inducing language ala DBMM)
Straight forward systems for Shooting, Combat, Movement etc
Differentiating Impact & Melee
Standard army size pretty much the same as DBM/DBMM (a plus for cross-over/conversion)
Shooting for bow armed mounted troops
CMTs

Neutral :
Pre-battle stuff and terrain set-up
Unit Status (ie Disrupted, Fragmented etc)
Seems rather old fashioned in some aspects with Evades, Interception Charges, Cohesion types/tests and suchlike
Generals being used to Rally/Bolster

Negatives :
Definate lack of 'Epic' scope to battles 'feels' much more like 7th Ed than DBM/MM in this regard.
SO many dice to roll each phase/s of shooting, combat, cohesion tests etc
Multiple BG states means lots of markers required
Combat can take several phases of dice rolling to achieve a decisive result

Overall an enjoyable game (even if rather simple line up and charge scn). Nice to have a ruleset with some clarity of purpose in its language. Feels very like a 'playable 7th Edt' in so many ways. More tactical approach than DBM/MM,
and not sure I prefer that to be honest (early days of course).
Might Of Arms gives me a similar game of about same level of complexity but the big bonus I forsee with FOG is it is more likely to be played by more people than MOA.
Overall I prefer the 'style' of game that DBMM generates (but not the headaches !) but bottom line is I will definately buy FOG upon its release as a very nice alternative set.

Kudos to those involved in FOG.

Cheers
Gary

Just curious as to why you think that FoG doesn't have the feel of a big battle?

Granted you can't drop off an odd element here or there and you can't reorganise groups on the fly but the games I have played feel a lot more fluid than a DBM/DBMM game and to be honest a lot of DBx games look very similar to FoG games for the first hour or so at least.

Hammy

My guess would be a few things:

1. You have less "units" in FoG - in DBM you have as many as you have elements (even if you can't necessarily move them all in one turn). Thus in comparison you feel you are playing with less regardless of the number of bases actually on the table.

2. The fact you can move everything is possibly a factor - you feel you have more control over the troops which, again, instinctivly makes you feel there are less of them.

3. The longer move distances (15mm anyway) make the battlefield feel smaller.

Hi Gary ,

after some games you will find more epic feeling in th fight when one of your units become nearly invincible ( at least in your mind )
you don't need many markers unlike you think ( you just have to use little ones )

when you will use the CMT regularly the games will be faster and attacks well done and more decisive ( have a plan at the begin of the game greatly help )
the terrain set up is good less easy to put your pieces of terrain where you want
good use of generals is important and interesting ( mine are less and less in first line due to their high propension to be killed )
overall FOG is a good rules set , far better than the rules already on the market ( even if DBM will stay in my heart if I have one )
just one advice : play FOG with good spirit all the good things will follow

thefrenchjester " fond of FOG "

Hi Hammy

Just curious as to why you think that FoG doesn't have the feel of a big battle?

Its a 'touchy-feely' perception really (hard to put into words) it just 'feels' lower level despite there being almost exactly the same number of bases/elements on table and split into Commands/Battles/Divisions.
Even with sub-generals my game still felt like I was playing with eqvivalent of 2 large central Cmds in Dbx.
Dont get me wrong I do like FOG as a ruleset and lots of its concepts its just I dont get the same feeling (there is that word again) of having fought a full scale battle as in DBx.
Best comparison a treadhead like myself can make is using for WWII Spearhead vis Command Decision, both sets use same scale (ie 1 base = a platoon) and organizations but they play in very different fashion. CD has more tactical feel whilst SH feels more grand in scope.

Maybe further play with FOG will change my perception but I doubt it as it feels (sorry last one) very like 7th Ed and one of the big attractions of changing to Dbm initially was its more epic scope.

Of course the dice rolling mechanisms of FOG are way more epic than DBx !!
Cheers
Gary

Hi Nik

My guess would be a few things:

You have nailed it tad better than I

1. You have less "units" in FoG - in DBM you have as many as you have elements (even if you can't necessarily move them all in one turn). Thus in comparison you feel you are playing with less regardless of the number of bases actually on the table.

Yes in FOG (and Might of Arms/Armati) for that matter the use of units seems to compress scope of game despite similar numbers of figs/bases used.

2. The fact you can move everything is possibly a factor - you feel you have more control over the troops which, again, instinctivly makes you feel there are less of them.

Agree again and this is what makes it seem a more tactical level game.
Curiously the use of activation rolls in Warmaster Ancs or Warlord help them seem at similar level to Dbx despite differences in nos of figs used.

3. The longer move distances (15mm anyway) make the battlefield feel smaller.

Actually I did not feel moves were much different than in Dbmm (which of course has larger overall moves than DBM)

Cheers
Gary

Hi FJ

after some games you will find more epic feeling in th fight

Having only done a simple solo playtest I am in no posistion to be definitive ref FOG but my gut feeling is as stated

you don't need many markers unlike you think ( you just have to use little ones )

I found myself using several, but yes they can be unobtrusive as such

overall FOG is a good rules set , far better than the rules already on the market ( even if DBM will stay in my heart if I have one )
just one advice : play FOG with good spirit all the good things will follow

As I said I do think FOG are a good set of rules and will give a fun game (not really in a posistion to debate its historical basis) and I will certainly purchase when its published.

The use of Dbx size armies, base sizes etc is definately a good marketing ploy

Cheers
Gary

H Gary

Thanks for the intitial feedback.

We'll look forward to seeing what you think as you get the hang of the game so you can think tactics more than mechanics. Seems to take 3-5 game on average from testing experience so far.

Have fun

Si