Just saw this post on the NZ Yahoo list. I have asked the OP to clarify who he is referring to, but I also posted that Hammy and Dave R to name two, are actively posting on this forum and are based in Manc. Is there another group of FOG players in Manc? I explained there may be perfectly good reasons why people are playing but not posting and am interested to hear what the facts in the matter are.
Regards
Dave M
--- In NZWargaming_Discuss@yahoogroups.com, "J G Taylor" <group> wrote:
>
> >I would therefore interested to know who your feedback was from, what they
> >actually
> >said and if they have played FoG.
>
> I spoke to the chap who is President of the Manchester wargames club (UK).
> Although they had 6 players signed up to test FoG he said that they were
> just playing it, to get familar with the rules before it was available to
> other people. No analysis of games was being sent to Slitherine and problems
> were not reported either. He was not impressed.
>
FOG in Manchester
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
Err, interesting. I wonder where that came from.
I certainly haven't noticed a lack of posts from me, Mr Ruddock, spike or sagii for a start.
There are a total of about a dozen signed up players in the club, it may be that the person providing the information was refering to the percieved attitude of the WAB players in the club although when I have played them any issues we have encoutered were posted to the forum.
Strange.
Hammy
I certainly haven't noticed a lack of posts from me, Mr Ruddock, spike or sagii for a start.
There are a total of about a dozen signed up players in the club, it may be that the person providing the information was refering to the percieved attitude of the WAB players in the club although when I have played them any issues we have encoutered were posted to the forum.
Strange.
Hammy
The OP also posted this link to promote his own rules:
http://www.3vwargames.co.uk/rules2.htm
So perhaps he has a vested interest in publicising percieved negativity about FOG?
http://www.3vwargames.co.uk/rules2.htm
So perhaps he has a vested interest in publicising percieved negativity about FOG?
Why on earth would Justin be posting on a NZ forum?
I believe there are a couple of other people signed up to play FoG - I got a couple of queries from people wanting to play in the Beta Test tournament I organised. They didn't turn up...
Unfortunately (would you believe it) I just deleted all the info I have on the people involved just 90 minutes ago
That may have been the people Justin was referring to
I believe there are a couple of other people signed up to play FoG - I got a couple of queries from people wanting to play in the Beta Test tournament I organised. They didn't turn up...
Unfortunately (would you believe it) I just deleted all the info I have on the people involved just 90 minutes ago
That may have been the people Justin was referring to
Justin has made similarly disparaging remarks about FoG on The Miniatures Page, and has done so about other rule sets as well. I think the fact that he offers a competing set for sale speaks volumes about his motivations.dave_r wrote:Why on earth would Justin be posting on a NZ forum?
On a number of threads in TMP, a handful of staunch DBA supporters have also tried to suggest that "FoG gives a good game…..but it's simulation of history is rather poor" and the like. These sorts of things tend to happen when a new rule set comes along and appears to be popular - fans of older and competing systems see it as a threat, and so rally to disparage the new rules, often without having taken the trouble to actually read or play them first. I have seen this happen before with DBA, DBM, Tactica, Armati and WAB, just to name a few. Que sera, sera!
Cheers,
Scott
Last edited by ars_belli on Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:34 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-
nikgaukroger
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
This is the latest respone from Justin, with my posted reply inserted.
Regards
Dave
--- In NZWargaming_Discuss@yahoogroups.com, "J G Taylor" <group> wrote:
(DM) Thanks for replying to my post as you have done. I tried to find words that asked you questions rather than challenged you. From the tone of your reply, you recognised that:-)
I've added some comments in text...
>
> >Could you check with your contact if these players are like myself,
> >too few games to be able to contribute or are they really playing
> >many games in a strange hope that they will "get the jump" on the
> >rest of us?
>
> What he said was (in effect) that they were using the excuse of playtesting
> to get familar with the rules prior to the official launch.
(DM) Seems a strange way to go about learning a rule-set to me. IMHO a "closed circuit" is not a good way to advance understanding of rules as you are at risk of perpetuating misunderstandings and stereotyping poor tactics.
>
> >I don't think not posting feedback or battle reports is a crime,
> >perhaps they, like me, were not confident of their understanding of
> >the rules to be sure they had struck a problem or simply
> >misunderstood the rule?
>
> Well they are keen tourny players, at the top of the tree playing WAB here
> in the UK.
(DM) Ah, I took it you meant DBM players, hence my reply naming two of those players I know in Manc. I don't know the WAB scene, but welcome their interest in other rulesets. Perhaps your contact should encourage them to widen their outlook and get involved with the DBM players testing FOG?
>
> >DM) I know many of the players from Manchester who are testing the
> >FOG rules. Notable among them are Dave Ruddock and James Hamilton,
> >who do post regularly to the FOG forum (which is open to public view
> >so you can check my statement.) Are these players from the club in
> >question?
>
> No idea but I thought that James Hamiltion is part of Slitherine.
(DM) James (Hammy) is a bit of a wargames junkie:-) Very good player of DBM and has done a lot of DBMM testing even winning a couple of early DBMM comps here. He is a moderator on the Slitherine forum, but to my knowledge completely independant of Slitherine the company.
Hammy is also a thoughoughly nice chap and is always ready and willing to share knowledge and is good company over a pint or more. Just don't ask him how his games went....;-p
>
> >(DM) As you are promoting your own rules, albeit free, you are perhaps
> >not entirely unbiased?;-p
>
> Well since people are discussing what rules are out there and the comment
> was made about wanting an enjoyable game. I thought I would throw my hat
> into the ring and offer the rules for free to the members of this forum.
(DM) OK, wargaming is a broad church and we are all free to choose what we wish to play. I only raised the issue as there was a hint (perhaps inadvertantly) of negativity about one ruleset in order to promote another. I believe comparisons are the way to do that and your OP seemed to make out that FOG is a secret cabal trying to keep others out. Due to commercial concerns, the FOG process has been more restricted than we as wargamers are accustomed to, but the whole process is open to all provided you pre-order a set of rules. This close to publication, I don't see the harm in that as IMHO Slitherine/Osprey have a right to protect their IP.
>
> Unlike most rules, they are actually designed to play historical battles and
> for that reason there are no army lists. IMHO if you want to play what-if,
> equal points games then any army list will do.
(DM) I think most people agree that the most lasting legacy of DBM is the excellent army list books that continue to be drawn upon by other rulesets, your own included.
>
> Anyway they are there, you can make your own mind up.
>
(DM) For my part I am still playing DBM 3.1 and playing the odd game of FOG. I haven't decided yet if FOG is my ruleset of choice for the future, but I haven't yet tried DBMM and frankly am unlikely to, until the next version. The current DBMM has too much "chrome" for my liking.
Again, thanks for the tone of your reply.
Regards
Dave M
Regards
Dave
--- In NZWargaming_Discuss@yahoogroups.com, "J G Taylor" <group> wrote:
(DM) Thanks for replying to my post as you have done. I tried to find words that asked you questions rather than challenged you. From the tone of your reply, you recognised that:-)
I've added some comments in text...
>
> >Could you check with your contact if these players are like myself,
> >too few games to be able to contribute or are they really playing
> >many games in a strange hope that they will "get the jump" on the
> >rest of us?
>
> What he said was (in effect) that they were using the excuse of playtesting
> to get familar with the rules prior to the official launch.
(DM) Seems a strange way to go about learning a rule-set to me. IMHO a "closed circuit" is not a good way to advance understanding of rules as you are at risk of perpetuating misunderstandings and stereotyping poor tactics.
>
> >I don't think not posting feedback or battle reports is a crime,
> >perhaps they, like me, were not confident of their understanding of
> >the rules to be sure they had struck a problem or simply
> >misunderstood the rule?
>
> Well they are keen tourny players, at the top of the tree playing WAB here
> in the UK.
(DM) Ah, I took it you meant DBM players, hence my reply naming two of those players I know in Manc. I don't know the WAB scene, but welcome their interest in other rulesets. Perhaps your contact should encourage them to widen their outlook and get involved with the DBM players testing FOG?
>
> >DM) I know many of the players from Manchester who are testing the
> >FOG rules. Notable among them are Dave Ruddock and James Hamilton,
> >who do post regularly to the FOG forum (which is open to public view
> >so you can check my statement.) Are these players from the club in
> >question?
>
> No idea but I thought that James Hamiltion is part of Slitherine.
(DM) James (Hammy) is a bit of a wargames junkie:-) Very good player of DBM and has done a lot of DBMM testing even winning a couple of early DBMM comps here. He is a moderator on the Slitherine forum, but to my knowledge completely independant of Slitherine the company.
Hammy is also a thoughoughly nice chap and is always ready and willing to share knowledge and is good company over a pint or more. Just don't ask him how his games went....;-p
>
> >(DM) As you are promoting your own rules, albeit free, you are perhaps
> >not entirely unbiased?;-p
>
> Well since people are discussing what rules are out there and the comment
> was made about wanting an enjoyable game. I thought I would throw my hat
> into the ring and offer the rules for free to the members of this forum.
(DM) OK, wargaming is a broad church and we are all free to choose what we wish to play. I only raised the issue as there was a hint (perhaps inadvertantly) of negativity about one ruleset in order to promote another. I believe comparisons are the way to do that and your OP seemed to make out that FOG is a secret cabal trying to keep others out. Due to commercial concerns, the FOG process has been more restricted than we as wargamers are accustomed to, but the whole process is open to all provided you pre-order a set of rules. This close to publication, I don't see the harm in that as IMHO Slitherine/Osprey have a right to protect their IP.
>
> Unlike most rules, they are actually designed to play historical battles and
> for that reason there are no army lists. IMHO if you want to play what-if,
> equal points games then any army list will do.
(DM) I think most people agree that the most lasting legacy of DBM is the excellent army list books that continue to be drawn upon by other rulesets, your own included.
>
> Anyway they are there, you can make your own mind up.
>
(DM) For my part I am still playing DBM 3.1 and playing the odd game of FOG. I haven't decided yet if FOG is my ruleset of choice for the future, but I haven't yet tried DBMM and frankly am unlikely to, until the next version. The current DBMM has too much "chrome" for my liking.
Again, thanks for the tone of your reply.
Regards
Dave M
-
spike
- Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:12 pm
- Location: Category 2
dave_r wrote:Why on earth would Justin be posting on a NZ forum?
I believe there are a couple of other people signed up to play FoG - I got a couple of queries from people wanting to play in the Beta Test tournament I organised. They didn't turn up...
Unfortunately (would you believe it) I just deleted all the info I have on the people involved just 90 minutes ago
That may have been the people Justin was referring to
In support of DaveR
From my recollection of the event was that feedback was positive for the FOG system under competition conditions.
Some interesting battle combinations were seen, and a few questions were raised for clarification.
Results are on Olivier's site at
http://fieldofglory.fr/spip.php?article17
Finaly.....
My dice were having one of their bad day's, where I seemed to get nothing in my favour, but that's not Dave's fault.
I don't think Justin actually charges for his rules. I have a feeling they are free although he did charge in the past I think.ars_belli wrote:Justin has made similarly disparaging remarks about FoG on The Miniatures Page, and has done so about other rule sets as well. I think the fact that he offers a competing set for sale speaks volumes about his motivations.dave_r wrote:Why on earth would Justin be posting on a NZ forum?
On a number of threads in TMP, a handful of staunch DBA supporters have also tried to suggest that "FoG gives a good game…..but it's simulation of history is rather poor" and the like. These sorts of things tend to happen when a new rule set comes along and appears to be popular - fans of older and competing systems see it as a threat, and so rally to disparage the new rules, often without having taken the trouble to actually read or play them first. I have seen this happen before with DBA, DBM, Tactica, Armati and WAB, just to name a few. Que sera, sera!
Cheers,
Scott
I also don't think he is taking spitefull digs, some people just don't like new things, or make up their mind before really trying something. The really fin ones have been Doug Melvilles damning of FoG after less than an hours play seemingly without reading the rules beforehand.
Hammy
I don't think Justin actually charges for his rules. I have a feeling they are free although he did charge in the past I think.ars_belli wrote:Justin has made similarly disparaging remarks about FoG on The Miniatures Page, and has done so about other rule sets as well. I think the fact that he offers a competing set for sale speaks volumes about his motivations.dave_r wrote:Why on earth would Justin be posting on a NZ forum?
On a number of threads in TMP, a handful of staunch DBA supporters have also tried to suggest that "FoG gives a good game…..but it's simulation of history is rather poor" and the like. These sorts of things tend to happen when a new rule set comes along and appears to be popular - fans of older and competing systems see it as a threat, and so rally to disparage the new rules, often without having taken the trouble to actually read or play them first. I have seen this happen before with DBA, DBM, Tactica, Armati and WAB, just to name a few. Que sera, sera!
Cheers,
Scott
I also don't think he is taking spitefull digs, some people just don't like new things, or make up their mind before really trying something. The really fin ones have been Doug Melvilles damning of FoG after less than an hours play seemingly without reading the rules beforehand.
Hammy
Hi James,hammy wrote:I don't think Justin actually charges for his rules. I have a feeling they are free although he did charge in the past I think.
I also don't think he is taking spitefull digs, some people just don't like new things, or make up their mind before really trying something. The really fin ones have been Doug Melvilles damning of FoG after less than an hours play seemingly without reading the rules beforehand.
Hammy
I don't know Justin personally, only from his posts in public discussion groups, so you probably have a much better grasp on his motives than I do. And I have to agree that his posts are models of decorum when compared with Mr. Melville's rants on the DBM list!
FWIW, Justin offered his rules free of charge in the past, when they were titled 'Alea Iacta Est' - I have a copy of this version. In 2007, when he released a new edition entitled 'The Die Is Cast,' he began charging £3.50 for the downloadable PDF file, and £7.50 for the CD version: http://www.3vwargames.co.uk/rules2.htm. He does still offer some sample pages and army lists as free downloads.
Cheers,
Scott