Slitherine

Hi,

Played another good game of FOG today down at the club with a fellow beta-tester. Good interest from passers-by who have fallen out of DBx ancients but who were very keen on what they saw of FOG, one even heading home to look stuff up/order on the web. There might be a few ancient armies down our way getting dusted off

From the game and subsequent rules revision I have the following questions with which any help/clarification would be gratefully accepted:

Possible responses to a charge:

1. Just to confirm that skirmishers who are charged while in combat have the option to evade (and in fact must pass a CMT to not evade if the chargers are non-skirmishers etc).

2. If skirmishers can and do evade from a combat as above, what do their previous combat opponents do?

3. Do routing skirmishers (or light chariots or single ranked cavalry) who are routing with pursuers in contact have the option (compulsion for skirmishers) to evade if charged by other enemy? If they do, does that then count as breaking contact with regard to their pursuers?

Routing and Pursuing:

4. For the purposes of "being in contact" with routers, what counts: corner to corner, side edge to side edge, front corner only to side or rear edge...?

5. Related to 4 above, if two BGs are pursuing one routing BG, and after determining which pursuer moves first, is there any restriction that stops the first pursuer contacting the routers in such a way that they block the second pursuing BG? And if the first pursuers do sort of block the second, how much effort do the second need to make to contact the routers, e.g. side to side as above etc?

6. If a BG in combat or as an overlap for multiple combats has multiple (and all) opposing BGs rout, what choices does it have with regard to which one it pursues: a) must it try and contact all routers, b) can it choose to pursue a particular router even if by doing so it might inhibit another friendly pursuer?

TIA for the help as always.

Cheers,

Steve

PPS - if anyone one wants to comment on an earlier terrain/visibility question...

stevoid wrote:Possible responses to a charge:

1. Just to confirm that skirmishers who are charged while in combat have the option to evade (and in fact must pass a CMT to not evade if the chargers are non-skirmishers etc).

They can't unless they were only fighting as an overlap.

2. If skirmishers can and do evade from a combat as above, what do their previous combat opponents do?

Nothing.

3. Do routing skirmishers (or light chariots or single ranked cavalry) who are routing with pursuers in contact have the option (compulsion for skirmishers) to evade if charged by other enemy?

No

Routing and Pursuing:

4. For the purposes of "being in contact" with routers, what counts: corner to corner, side edge to side edge, front corner only to side or rear edge...?

Any contact

5. Related to 4 above, if two BGs are pursuing one routing BG, and after determining which pursuer moves first, is there any restriction that stops the first pursuer contacting the routers in such a way that they block the second pursuing BG?

No

And if the first pursuers do sort of block the second, how much effort do the second need to make to contact the routers, e.g. side to side as above etc?

The rules don't go into such details. Ask an umpire if you cannot agree with your opponent.

6. If a BG in combat or as an overlap for multiple combats has multiple (and all) opposing BGs rout, what choices does it have with regard to which one it pursues: a) must it try and contact all routers, b) can it choose to pursue a particular router even if by doing so it might inhibit another friendly pursuer?

The rules don't go into such details. This would be a very rare situation if the routers routed in different directions. I have never seen it happen in all my many test games. Ask an umpire if you cannot agree with your opponent.

The rules writing policy has been not to clutter the rules with extra rules to cover obscure situations like this.

Thanks Richard. The purpose of some of these finicky questions is that I will be the umpire for the first National FOG tournament down here next year - people will be asking me! We don't have the same number of people playing FOG at the moment as the Northern hemisphere, nor the luxury of many tournaments where the FOG team are there to adjudicate. Therefore, the pool of collective wisdom that results from such events is that much smaller

We look forward to the website with FAQ and clarifications for those types of things (although I'm sure the published rules with diagrams and the unusual situations appendix will be a great help). The non-cluttered rules (and answers to persistent questions) are appreciated

Cheers,

Steve

PS - However, I do anticipate that having one pursuer cut off another will be a fairly common tactic if it is legal.

stevoid wrote:However, I do anticipate that having one pursuer cut off another will be a fairly common tactic if it is legal.

Conceivably but
1) There isnt that much scope for moving the first BG in mysterious ways to achieve it - As umpire I would force the first BG moved to take the shortest route. (The shortest route in my umpirial opinion). The rules don't say you can choose to do otherwise. (And absence of prohibition does not allow an action. For example there is no rule prohibiting teleportation).
2) It isn't that hard to pass a CMT to stop pursuing.
3) You will usually want both BGs to make contact in the first pursuit, so as to autobreak the routers permanently. In my games it has been more of a case of disappointment rather than joy when both BGs can't contact.

There will always be a few extreme nitpickers and opportunistic loophole seekers in the white heat of tournament play. We think it is better not to pretend that the rules can cover every obscure situation and allow an umpire to decide if there is disagreement. The alternative is to pretend that the rules cover everything, and then they get treated as holy writ, with endless "theological" disputes over their exact meaning. We have seen it all before with DBM.

OK Steve - let's cut to the chase - who won!?

Tirithon wrote:OK Steve - let's cut to the chase - who won!?

FOG was the winner on the day

Let's just say I rolled dice to kill Pete's commanders as though I was you (although I learned the hard way that small units of average troops can reach auto break very quickly without dropping a cohesion level: impact-melee-melee-dead)!