Roll Call Results

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:25 pm

The results for this weekends FoG tournament at Roll Call were:

1st Andy Ellis - Tatar - 86
2nd Mark Muslek - Late Republican Roman - 83
3rd Don McHugh - Alexandrian - 83 (Mark beat Don when they played eachother)
4th Richard Bodley-Scott - French Ordonance - 73
5th Peter Butler - Ilkhanid - 69
6th Steve Hacker - Later Hoplite Greek - 57
7th Steve Clarke - Principate Roman - 52
8th Roger Greenwood - Dailami - 49
9th Gerry Brawley - Dominate Roman - 44
9th Dave Allen - Bosphoran - 44

I acted as umpire (I was actually playing in a diferent competition to ballance numbers) and over the 20 games played there were actually a very low number of umpire calls and only a handful if that of areas where the current draft of the rules could do with tweaks.

With a little gentle pushing perhaps some of the players will be willing to write up reports of their campaigns.

Yours felling a bit miffed that I couldn't play FoG

Hammy

donm · Post by **donm** » Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:41 pm

A great weekend all round. Too tied tonight to go into detail. But suspect I have more ideas than most as to how to deal with 'Impact Foot', As I played three Roman armies and a Dailami.

Big thanks to the organisers

Don M

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:03 pm

Thanks to the organisers and all who took part.

Thanks to Hammy for umpiring.

Thanks for all the kind words said about FoG. (And the lack of unkind ones).

I note that the tournament was won by an (almost) all cavalry Tatar (Mongol) army, with Marian/Caesarian Romans 2nd and Alexandrian Macedonians 3rd. Nice to see historically successful armies doing well, with no particular bias towards horse or foot armies.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 12:34 pm

Despite losing three of my four games I enjoyed the weekend. It is an indication of the quality of the game when you can enjoy the losses as well as the wins. Despite the relative small number of games that I (and probably 'we' as a group) have played, the speed of play seemed to be amazingly fast. With a few more games to fix in my mind a few of the details from the reference sheet, I believe I will be playing FoG faster than any other set of wargame rules.

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:22 pm

Great to hear such news - I look forwad with interest to Britcon

Si

davesaunders23 · Post by **davesaunders23** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:23 pm

what historical period is dominate roman?

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:24 pm

Late Imperial Roman

Si

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:28 pm

davesaunders23 wrote:what historical period is dominate roman?

In the FoG lists rather than Early, Middle and Late Imperial Roman there are instead Principate and Dominate Roman with the early part of the MIR in Principate and the late part in Dominate. Patrician Roman will be called Foederate Roman.

Hammy

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:39 pm

The Dominate Roman list runs from the start of Diocletian's reign to c. 425AD.

andy63 · Post by **andy63** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:57 pm

Hi what a fantastic weekend not just because i won and Incidentally i lost 2 of my games,but what a free flowing set of wargame rules what are easy to read and understand, theres no sneaky horrible moves (ie kinking) but free flowing mechanism. I know theres still a lot of people out there what are sceptical of changers to the current style of wargame rules what we have been using for Ancients wargaming but i have been wargaming now for over 24 years and always on the competitive scene and i personly think these are the best set of Ancient wargame rules i have played with. I am not knocking DBM these are a good set of rules but i think we need change and i believe i am not alone when i say this.
At this point i would like to thank the organisers of Roll call,Hammy for being umpire and the rest of the FOG competitors for a stress free weekend.

Andy E.