Official FoG:R Update

[nikgaukroger]

After some discussion with Slitherine it looks like this is now going to be A Thing

It is not going to be a v2, it is going to be an update to v1 - so think of it as v1.x. You can decide on what the "x" is when the scope becomes clear

It is not going to be a new rules book. This, logically, means that a PDF download is the most likely distribution method. No new army list books either before anyone asks.

I'm going to lead on this and have drafted in Kevin Johnson and Stephen Stead to assist. I am very grateful that they have agreed to this.

Alas Richard is much too busy with his PC game projects to be involved, however, he will have oversight on what is agreed which will be very valuable. Again I am grateful that he wants to do this as, quite honestly, FoG:R would not exist if he hadn't been involved with FoG in the first place.

Slitherine will set up a new sub-forum for public debate of the update and I hope as many people as possible contribute, discuss, and, dare we hope, do some play testing as well

When the forum is up and running we will publish our ideas about the areas of the rules that we think could do looking at. These will not be set in stone so comments and suggestions will be welcome, however, please bear in mind that the aim is to keep the number of changes within reason - update not wholesale revision is the aim. Additionally I anticipate a small number of army list revisions may be included but the number of such will be kept low as we do not want players substantial investment in the list books to be lost - I do not anticipate any new lists.

[timmy1]

Nik and team. Very welcome news and thank you for this. Happy to help in any way I can.

[ravenflight]

After some discussion with Slitherine it looks like this is now going to be A Thing

This is a good thing Nik.

I've done quite a bit of play testing with the artillery rule that I employed a number of years ago, and it's been played at CanCon and MOAB for 2 years without a problem (except for a minor niggle about reducing the effectiveness with regards to points spent).

The rule is as follows:

"Uncontrolled or captured artillery are removed immediately after 'Move Routers and Pursuers' of the Joint Action Phase."

I find this very effective in getting rid of an impassible obstacle.

Given that captured/recaptured artillery is considered poor and only hits infantry on a 5 or 6 to which they have to re-roll the 6, I think the extra complexity of keeping them on the table is not worth it. I would think that it may be worth a points reduction given the inability to recapture your lost guns, but to be honest, I've not really got a problem with the points as they are with the change in the rule.

[timmy1]

I believe that the artillery rule is right, with the exception that it should an option only available to the side that captured it. I have seen capture used very effectively to enfilade troops (sadly my troops...)

[ravenflight]

I believe that the artillery rule is right, with the exception that it should an option only available to the side that captured it. I have seen capture used very effectively to enfilade troops (sadly my troops...)

I don't think the 'impassible terrain feature to mounted' is worth the headache on the rare circumstances that they do work.

But that's ok, I'll continue with my house rule for now and happy to discuss.

[ravenflight]

The other 'problem' I find with the rules is that the 2 dice mounted seem to be over-costed. I think this is a common feeling. I'm not quite sure how to fix this.

I've though of several options:

1 - counting 'pistol' as 'shot' so that the cuirassiers don't get an armour advantage, but that may skew things somewhat;
2 - making them 'self supporting' (similar to Tercio and Keils). (not elegant, as it seems like a 'freeby to make them more cost effective').
3 - Changing the cost.
4 - giving them a ++ as an overlap, so it would akin to the 'swordsmen' and 'warriors' but only against mounted (or you could even count it against everyone, but that may make them too tough against pike and shot).

[timmy1]

I have said it elsewhere I believe that they should count 3 dice not 2 - certainly for impact.

[ravenflight]

I have said it elsewhere I believe that they should count 3 dice not 2 - certainly for impact.

\\

Hmmm, I think that would have to be seriously play-tested. It could be a very big game changer.

Interesting idea tho.

[paris]

Although having switched to another ruleset concerning the ancient - medieval period, saw the proposed changes in beta section of FOG 3.0 and methinks that they are in the right direction - I 'd be glad to see the same conceptions in the renaissance variant (which I still play) - speed up the game and make combat more decisive IMHO - you still know better though
Regards

[kevinj]

Our aim with this update is principally to fix a number of issues that have arisen with experience of the rules in the last 6 years. It's very much a version 1.1 rather than V2 or V3. That said, I think that it would be wrong to ignore the developments in FoG AM, and see if there are any ideas that are worth stealing. I've been monitoring the discussions on FoG AM v3 and I agree that a number of them are of interest.

[madaxeman]

Our aim with this update is principally to fix a number of issues that have arisen with experience of the rules in the last 6 years. It's very much a version 1.1 rather than V2 or V3. That said, I think that it would be wrong to ignore the developments in FoG AM, and see if there are any ideas that are worth stealing. I've been monitoring the discussions on FoG AM v3 and I agree that a number of them are of interest.

Good to hear its still a clean-up rather than a "new version".

FWIW the V3 AM suggestions do not seem to be receiving a particularly warm welcome in France - see this thread where the French AM community appear to be saying that if there are too many (or indeed any) big changes they will basically ignore them and carry on with V2.

A cautious approach to FoGR revisions would therefore appear to be the best solution to keep the France/Belgium FoGR contingent involved in the international FoGR community.

[kevinj]

Perhaps I could have phrased that better. What I mean is that where we're looking at something that we feel needs fixing, one of the inputs would be looking at how a similar issue has been addressed in FoG AM. I don't think there's any intention to adopt any of the V2 or proposed V3 changes unless we feel they represent the best solution for a FoG R issue.

[nikgaukroger]

Perhaps I could have phrased that better. What I mean is that where we're looking at something that we feel needs fixing, one of the inputs would be looking at how a similar issue has been addressed in FoG AM. I don't think there's any intention to adopt any of the V2 or proposed V3 changes unless we feel they represent the best solution for a FoG R issue.

Sums it up nicely IMO

[ravenflight]

I tend to think that changes can very quickly and easily become 'a can of worms'.

I think FoG:R as it stands works. There are a few things that just seem totally weird in the big scheme of things that are probably unintended results of the authors (naturally) not being able to grasp the full ramifications of the rule and result in odd situations (case in point the captured artillery) and other things that seem disappointing (the perceived lack of cost effectiveness of 2 dice mounted) which result in nice armies not being played. Those are two issues that (clearly, because you hear me banging on about them all the time) are my priorities and minor tweeks to 'fix' those issues would be welcome. As soon as you start going too far, you end up with thing ramping up really quickly. Soon, the rules change that you make ends up being the new version of the 'artillery rule problem' or makes other troops less cost effective.

So, personally, I'd go really really slowly, and also make very minor changes.

[nikgaukroger]

So, personally, I'd go really really slowly, and also make very minor changes.

Hopefully we can start "public consultation" next week - once I have got back to Slitherine about a couple of things like a forum to use.

I think we currently have about half a dozen substantive points for consideration, some of which are, inevitably, inter-linked. Playability of troops such as Determined Horse are, unsurprisingly, in there - as is the artillery issue

We aren't going to rush at this, however, neither are we going to let it drift. As we are not planning too many changes I would expect we can reach a conclusion reasonably quickly - but it isn't just going to be a few days

[ravenflight]

We aren't going to rush at this, however, neither are we going to let it drift. As we are not planning too many changes I would expect we can reach a conclusion reasonably quickly - but it isn't just going to be a few days

I understand, and appreciate that Nik.

I guess I was responding to the 'let's look at AM' crowd, which terrifies me to be honest. FoG:R in lots of ways is a split from FoG:AM V1 and a bit. I.e. the lessons learned in V1 were taken into account, and I think generally they did a bloody good job. We're now at V3 of AM and so it's a long way away from the building blocks of FoG:R... and what's more, are still in the play-testing stage. I wouldn't want (for example) the switch-a-roo of when to do the tests wrt casualties etc, or the 3 dice on impact etc as I think that is too big a change.

FoG:R (IMHO) works. Naturally, I think it works better with the 'artillery rule' that I instigated at CanCon, but that may be arrogance speaking . Whatever happens, I don't want FoG:R (which is just holding on here in Australia) to become so dramatically changed that whatever fan base we have disappears (a la FoG:AM digital only edition).

[Akbar]

I only just noticed that Slitherine has dumped FoG-R, just as I was about to embark on building a Trastamara force. I'm very happy to see that there is interest in continuing this as a more community-based project. Guess I'd better start chasing down the printed books on ebay.....

[urbanbunny1]

Hi Nik, Kevin,

A few things I'd have a look at are

Dragoons. We have all seen how effective the Dragoon Sniper teams can be

Artillery. Artillery is far too effective, we've all had units blow away in a matter of turns by artillery. I know we have a few house rules to get around the obstacle effect which has made them much more playable. I have also found the house rule of artillery having to be deployed in the first deployment phase quite good and not being able to fire into the flank. Saves artillery being perfectly lined up.

Determined Horse aren't cost effective compared to two battle groups of horse. Maybe more dice for impact/melee? I did like the comment in one posting of allowing them to have a ++ POA for the overlap.

Average horse aren't worth the effort, so, what could we do to make them worth it? Allow them in sixes or make them cheaper. If you think that an Superior Curassier is worth 13 points while an Average one is worth 10, I know which one I would prefer to have.

More ideas to come after Warfare

Happy to help if you need it.

Simon

[ravenflight]

Dragoons. We have all seen how effective the Dragoon Sniper teams can be

Interesting. I've never been able to get much use out of dragoons. I mean, I use them, but more for slowing people down than using as a sniper. How does a 'sniper team' get used?

I have also found the house rule of artillery having to be deployed in the first deployment phase quite good and not being able to fire into the flank. Saves artillery being perfectly lined up.

I can't say I like this overly, but that may be more of an effect of how good mounted is than on the rule as a whole. We know the MadAxeman has had good use of armies like 'the Buccaneers', but I for one have tried (I admit in an early game with less experience) and found that there is no answer for mounted.

Determined Horse aren't cost effective compared to two battle groups of horse. Maybe more dice for impact/melee? I did like the comment in one posting of allowing them to have a ++ POA for the overlap.

Think this is true of all '2 dice mounted'. I think that's what you meant tho?

[nikgaukroger]

Hi Nik, Kevin,

A few things I'd have a look at are

Dragoons. We have all seen how effective the Dragoon Sniper teams can be

Dragoons are a topic we've noted needs discussing, so that'll be in there from the begining.

Artillery. Artillery is far too effective, we've all had units blow away in a matter of turns by artillery. I know we have a few house rules to get around the obstacle effect which has made them much more playable. I have also found the house rule of artillery having to be deployed in the first deployment phase quite good and not being able to fire into the flank. Saves artillery being perfectly lined up.

I am expecting Art effectiveness against mounted to be brought up so if it goes wider than that no problem.

Determined Horse aren't cost effective compared to two battle groups of horse. Maybe more dice for impact/melee? I did like the comment in one posting of allowing them to have a ++ POA for the overlap.

Obviously will be in the discussion mix. What I would like people to think about is twofold - firstly the points cost and secondly the historical interaction. If the issue is value for money then it is the points that need changing and not the interaction - I think people mix the two up at times. Also on this one remember some list tweaks are on the agenda as well.

Average horse aren't worth the effort, so, what could we do to make them worth it? Allow them in sixes or make them cheaper. If you think that an Superior Curassier is worth 13 points while an Average one is worth 10, I know which one I would prefer to have.

Again, average troops are in the mix, mounted ones especially so. I'll state here and now that I am massively opposed to increasing the number of mounted troops that can be in sixes (and Richard is happy with my stand on this), so I would recommend people think about other ways of dealing with the issue.

More ideas to come after Warfare

Excellent

Hopefully we will have our forum by then, however, that is dependent on Slitherine's work schedule and setting it up will (quite reasonably) not be a priority for them. If it starts to drag we will go with some interim arrangement as I suspect that we need to get going pretty soon after Warfare otherwise we drift into the holiday period when momentum for it will fall away.

Happy to help if you need it.

Simon

Contributing to the discussions when they start will be the best way and be very much appreciated.