Rules rewrite?

[firefalluk]

So,
when can we expect a revised edition of FOG with a decent index, and a complete reorganisation of the rules so that it actually makes some sense, and players can find rules without having to memorise the whole bloody set?

[nigelemsen]

sorry, apart from the lack of an index, which I understand is now avaiable as a download, I find the rulebook very workable and I find the grib sheets contain all I need. Occasionly the full text needs to be refered to check on a "gamey" or unexpected outcome/move.

[hammy]

I don't expect a new version any time soon (most likely not this decade).

The player index is on the field of glory website http://www.fieldofglory.com/file/EXPANDEDINDEX.pdf.

There were a number of different itterations of organisation for the rules and the published organisation was the prefered one of the vast majority of involved parties. It is very different to many other sets of rules which may or may not be a good thing.

Which areas do you find a problem?

[CrazyHarborc]

Let's se now....Problems I have with the rules?? Nope not so far. AS a yank I DO have problems with being seperated by two versions of our common/shared language. Sorry.....I had to say it to get the thought out of my mind.

IMHO, the rules and suppliments are better and easier to understand (IF I think a little from time to time) than a certain other couple of sets I have used.

By the by the official charts are great and a BIG help. Same can be said about Erratta and FOQ (are those the correct letters?).....ANYWAY I like the rules...sooo do the old farts I play with.

[nikgaukroger]

Can't say I've had any real problems with the organistaion of the rules and pretty much just play from the reference sheets anyway - I guess I always try and memorise the rules

[rogerg]

The rules are organised in a pattern I hope most people find sensible. They start by telling the reader the basics of what is being played with, bases, troop types and so forth. They follow this with the basics of movement. The idea being that the different movements are carried out in several phases. To make sense of the remainder of the book you need to understand for example, what 'wheeling' is and how to do it.

The rules then take you through the game phases as they happen in a bound of play. These sections contain only the new movement rules specific to the particular section. This is to keep each section as short as possible. For the same reason, the sections that contain combat, refer you to the combat sections, because the combat mechanics are broadly similar for impact, shooting and melee and repeating them would greatly extend the book.

Precise definitions are in the glossary. Once again, this keeps the individual sections as concise as possible.

If the above is kept in mind, finding items in the rules is relatively easy. For example. if you need to resolve something to do with charging, it will be in the impact section. If this involves knowing how to move the figures, you may need to look back to the basic movement section. Once the figures are in position, you look ahead to the combat sections to see how to resolve the impact combat.

The one thing that I have found a little difficult is having the competiton game sequence right at the back. However, as I am sure the authors will point out, the rules are not just for competition players. It is quite reasonable to have this specialist material where it is.

[ars_belli]

I have read and played dozens of different ancients rule sets over the years, and I have absolutely no problem with the language and organization of the FoG rules. Quite the contrary, I find them to be a model of coherence and clarity, especially with the addition of the revised index file. However, I can certainly understand how someone who has played one rule set for along time, and so has grown accustomed to a particular type of layout and organization, might tend to struggle a bit when faced with something new and different.

Cheers,
Scott

[pyruse]

It can be pretty hard to find things in the rules, even though you know they are there.
The online index helps; heaven knows why it wasn't in the published rules.
For instance, why are the rules on rear support in the Glossary, rather than in the section on Cohesion tests where you would expect them?
There are other examples of this sort of thing; the layout of the rules is OK, but it's by no means the clearest set of rules I've read, even though it is much clearer than some other rules.
If you compare the layout of FoG to rules like "Fire & Fury" or "Shako", the comparison doesn't favour FoG, IMO.

[OhReally]

I don't understand why things are not put together a little better either. I should not have to look in the Glossary under "Open Terrain" to find rules for how my stakes and portables defenses work. It makes no sense at all that these rules for how these negate the "open terrain" bonus would not be in section for the stakes.

Great rules, pretty books, but anyone with any sense can see that the organization is poor.

[firefalluk]

Well, just to restrict myself to things that stand out from last Saturday's game:

1. Names of terrain pieces only seem to be on the QR sheet, leading to some confusion (to say the least)
2. Simply trying to put together the choice of terrain and what it does, required flipping back & forth numerous times
3. Basic movement rules and manouevre located in 2 separate sections
4. Trying to isolate how to turn to flank when hit in flank for 3-deep formation was a headache
5. As simple a thing as finding when cav bounce off infantry was a major chore

I'm afraid I've forgotten most of the issues at this point, however suffice it to say, there were quite a lot more.
Please dont take this as an indiscriminate slam, I like the basic ideas and concepts and find them refreshing my taste for ancients, but having in the last couple of years wandered away from DBM and played other periods, well, as <i> pyruse </i> comments, the organisation and layout don't stand up.

Never mind, I will doubtless at some point buy a second copy and reduce it to component parts & lay it out myself to my own satisfaction (to the complete puzzlement of all others no doubt)

[ethan]

The biggest challenge is realizing that some things are only defined in the glossary. Once you remember that is the place to look for defintions I find things mostly to be simple. The glossary thing is fine, just a bit unexpected perhaps.

[peterrjohnston]

Hi Phil,

Don't worry about it, most of the things you list become ingrained knowledge pretty
quickly (mounted break-off for example). The tabs down the side of the pages help,
and the players index makes a big difference when you want to find something. The
QRS is worth having as well.

Personally I think the most complex section and worth studying well is the impact phase.
Particularly interception charges and evades, the latter as it also applies to routs.

Rgds,
Peter

[rogerg]

During the beta testing stage there was a lot of thought and discussion on the way the rules were put together. As one contributor has suggested, for many people it is the change from the expected that it is the problem. There is a lot of information to be conveyed. There were suggestions that information needed in more than one place might be repeated. However, that approach leads to having more content, which in turn makes it harder to find rules because of the sheer volume of content.

"Firefall's" points on 3 and 4 are a nice illustration of the issues here. 'Turning' occurs in more than one section of the game, so will be in the general movement section. Contacted in flank occurs only in the impact section. The impact section refers back to turning to flank. The expectation is that players would either know the basic turning rules or would know to look back to the general movement section. So point 3 is true, you need to look in two sections, but only until you are familiar with the basic turning rules. The alternative would be to have a full description under impact. However, the impact section is quite long, so other rules would get lost in the volume of content if this approach was adopted in each case. Once again, it is probably a matter of what you expect and are used to from other rule sets.

[Claudius]

Overall, FoG is an excellent balanced game with well-thought out rules.

A] I agree with the previous comments that the Rules book could be better organized. Much too much page-turning is required.
The Rules and Army books are very much like software user manuals, and the current FoG ones are Version 1.0. While a re-write may cut into Slitherine profit margins, publishing a Version 1.1 [Not a major 2.0 version] Rules and perhaps some Army books that correct the various errata, incorporate player-suggested improvements or relevant historical information, and re-work the tables of contents/indices would be a very good investment of funding to keep, and especially to grow the customer base [i.e., Get NEW players rather than capture experienced players]. Given the complexity of the Rules and Lists and the anticipated customer "Forum" feedback, seems like a near-term [2009?] Version 1.1 should have been part of the original FoG business plan.

B] One problem area is the logic shorthand that is used in some of the rules tables and charts.
There was a long forum ["LH vs. LF, etc.] discussion earlier on the use and implications of:
1] "OR" constructs
2] "OR, ... OR ... , ...., OR ..." constructs
3] Use of "AND/OR"
4] "Sometimes"
There seem to be UK implied understandings, perhaps UK wargaming tradition-specific, of these constructs and their logic that either are unspecified/unknown or that do not travel well outside the UK. ASAP - Those "shorthand" items need to be expanded/reworked for clarity, and the UK gaming logic removed or clarified so that other English-speakers, and new English speakers can more easily understand the rule set. Either in the errata sheet or in Version 1.1.

Thanks/Cheers

[rogerg]

There is a further complication here given the breadth of the market. From reading the forum, it is clear the FoG players range from the 'once every two month' local group types to the fifty plus games a year club and competition types. I'm one of the latter, come from a DBM background, and want a short book, very much in the 'computer manual' style. Although I cannot speak for others, I would guess that the less frequent players tend towards the Warhammer style of narrative book. They are not too worried about the length of the rules.

If you are not playing very often, the rule learning experience will be one of reading the book and the narrative, with examples, will be what gets committed to memory. When someone plays regularly, it is the accumualted practical experience that is the learning tool. I remember rules because I have seen the event in a game, not because of the rule book examples I read through.

If the above is correct, then the logical step would not be a re-write. Some players like what they have already. The answer would be to produce an expanded version with more examples and introduce more definitions into the text.

[OhReally]

If the above is correct, then the logical step would not be a re-write. Some players like what they have already. The answer would be to produce an expanded version with more examples and introduce more definitions into the text.

If you already know the rules, then you don't really need to worry that much about the rulebook. You should not have to learn how to use the rulebook based upon poor organization and editing though.

I dont' think more examples are needed, I think it needs to be organized and edited in a professional way. There is nothing logical about the format, or how you have to hop around the book looking for things.

I have seen several times three people quoting rules on the same thing from different sections of the book and arguing each was right on their point. While I personally think they don't need a rewrite until they are ready for the second FoG version, I do think they need to look at how bad they did on certain things and fix them when they do a reprint or new version.

[rogerg]

'Poor organisation' is a subjective view. I am arguing that the frequency of playing is a factor in how one learns and how useful the book is. No-one is going to learn the rules after just two or three games. The time between games is important in learning.

For those of us averaging more than one game per week, a short book is very useful. The constant practice means the basics are learnt very quickly and we find the short book where we can turn to the relevant game phase with specific details the most useful. I'm one of these people. This has worked for me.

For those who play less frequently, it would seem that a different layout might be more useful. The problem is that rule design and production is by necessity done by those who play frequently and discuss often. From the comments I am reading in this forum, less frequent players are not used to the layout.

The rules are not going to be re-written anytime soon. Perhaps there should be a part of this forum 'on how to approach the rules'. Different people learn games in different ways. I am pleased the book layout works for some of us. I would be interested in finding out how others might prefer it done.

[jdm]

Just a comment on an earlier post. I can assure that the rules where put together professionally and after a considerable number of iterations, rearrangements and relayouts. I doubt any wargames ruleset has been through such a rigourous process, but then I would say that and I hope that the production values give some indication of the care and planning that went into these books.

They might not be to everyone’s taste but I can assure you that the layout was not arrived at by happenchance. Learning styles differ tremendously and we are very aware of the various factors to consider. We run across this sort of issue with every manual and games tutorial that we prepare.

In the end the only certainty is that it is impossible to satisfy everyone on this point, but keep the feedback coming we are listening

Regards
JDM

[daleivan]

Just a comment on an earlier post. I can assure that the rules where put together professionally and after a considerable number of iterations, rearrangements and relayouts. I doubt any wargames ruleset has been through such a rigourous process, but then I would say that and I hope that the production values give some indication of the care and planning that went into these books.

They might not be to everyone’s taste but I can assure you that the layout was not arrived at by happenchance. Learning styles differ tremendously and we are very aware of the various factors to consider. We run across this sort of issue with every manual and games tutorial that we prepare.

In the end the only certainty is that it is impossible to satisfy everyone on this point, but keep the feedback coming we are listening

Regards
JDM

FWIW I find the rules to be remarkably well organized and laid out for a set of wargame rules

Cheers,

Dale

[OhReally]

Just a comment on an earlier post. I can assure that the rules where put together professionally and after a considerable number of iterations, rearrangements and relayouts. I doubt any wargames ruleset has been through such a rigourous process, but then I would say that and I hope that the production values give some indication of the care and planning that went into these books.

They might not be to everyone’s taste but I can assure you that the layout was not arrived at by happenchance. Learning styles differ tremendously and we are very aware of the various factors to consider. We run across this sort of issue with every manual and games tutorial that we prepare.

In the end the only certainty is that it is impossible to satisfy everyone on this point, but keep the feedback coming we are listening

Regards
JDM

I don't think you should shoot to satisfy everyone, but you could address the specific flaws in the organization that people have pointed out in this thread.

I don't understand how having to look in the "Glossary of Terms" under Open Terrain to find out how my stakes works makes any sense or is well organized at all. I could have lived with a "See Open Terrain in Glossary of Terms" under fortifications or portable defenses, but that is not there. This is one, of many, examples of how the book layout was not well throughout enough.

Again it's a good game, it got me back into models, and it's a pretty book and I don't think anyone is saying it's not. The problem is in it's organization which honestly is very poor in many areas. I don't mind living with that, but if you don't acknowledge that there are some things that need to be fixed then you won't actually fix them when you finally do a reprint or a new version of the product.