July 2014 FOG N tournament Melbourne

[pugsville]

Kieth was unlucky. Without glorious super hussars taking out his uber battery he would most likely won fairly quickly, (which why I went the long shot hail mary charge to pull my chestnuts out of the fire.) IT was good and glorious but it was rather against the odds.

[KeefM]

Glorious indeed ... and game changing. But mostly glorious !! And it really was your only possible choice.

[Saxonian]

Makes you think just how unlucky the Light Brigade were at Balaclava.
First the Russians roll 4+ to defend the guns, then manage to get all those hits as the British charged in!

I suppose the British cav must have been superior, otherwise they never would have closed

[Blathergut]

Link to scenarios as promised. Look in the Napoleonics section for the "here" link. I'd be interested to hear any feedback on how people find them. I'm sure there's still scope for refinement.

http://www.leagueofancients.org.au/Gaming.aspx

Did the 650 and 800 point lists have to follow all minimums, including commander types and attachments?

[Blathergut]

Was there a specific distance the buildings were kept back from the stream?

[Blathergut]

Third: For initiative, do you just use commander initiative or also that list's inherent initiative as well? If I score 3+ above opponent, do I gain 40points in troops?

[babyshark]

I will add a fourth question: were LOCs used, or did the scenario victory conditions obviate the need for them?

Marc

[BrettPT]

Third: For initiative, do you just use commander initiative or also that list's inherent initiative as well? If I score 3+ above opponent, do I gain 40points in troops?

For initiative the lower initiative level of your two CCs was used (in the lowest of your 650 point and 800 point CCs)
Army initiative was added but no bonus units for 3+ rolls.

[BrettPT]

Did the 650 and 800 point lists have to follow all minimums, including commander types and attachments?

- yes

[KeefM]

No LoCs to be used.

No FF allowed in lists either.

[JJMicromegas]

Hello me and my club have been playtesting the various scenarios and have enjoyed them quite a bit as they add flavour and challenge to our games. Last night I played the Burnstein, 1805 scenario and the following questions came up:

- When the scenario states that setup as per normal FoGN rules, does this include adding additional terrain? Or is the terrain and objectives in the scenario the only ones to be used.

- In this particular scenario it states that any unit occupying the area of the objective will count as holding it. This opens the system up to abuse whereby one side could, on the last turn, marginally move a unit onto the piece of terrain and deny it to the other side. As the defender this is what I did, since we had pre-determined time for the game I moved units onto the objective that was held by the attacker on my last move. In one case the unit was only marginally on the objective area, whereas in the other it was completely within the objective area. I know that this was a cheesey move so we decided to not count the unit that was only marginally on the objective.


I wanted to know your thoughts on this and also mention that we are enjoying the scenarios, I am going to organize a competition around them in November.

[Saxonian]

The terrain for each scenario was set, and there were no additions. Each map is a slightly stylised representation of the actual battlefield, with adjustments made to enable a good game. For the one in N. Italy (is that Durnstein? The one with the three vineyards anyway) the actual battlefield was nearly covered in vineyards, which would make for a pretty slow moving and frustrating game if they were all on the table.

As far as the objectives were concerned, we played it strictly as written. I was caught out by this in the Durnstein (? - vineyards) scenario myself. Time was running out, and none of the three objectives were occupied. My opponent moved a unit into one, and in my next turn I had the chance to move one unit to challenge his (similar to what you described), and another to occupy a second vineyard........but time was called!!

Moral of the story - play the mission first, and your opponent second......and keep half an eye on the clock!

[JJMicromegas]

Thanks for the responses, that is in fact the battle that I was referring to.

One other point of clarification; when the rules state set up as per normal FoGN rules, I am assuming they mean the defender deploys three units first and then the attacker and so on? Reason being there are some scenarios that provide specific setup instructions for attackers and defender but I am assuming they apply to the standard setup.

Thanks again, the scenarios have added some new life to our FoGN games.

[pugsville]

There was always a choice between trying to win the scenario objective and trying to break the opposing army in these games. You can be successful by ignoring the objectives and breaking the other guys army, but as time runs away the objectives tend to become more important. You can concentrate on one or the other or peruse both, it's a strategic / tactical choice.

[hos459]

One other point of clarification; when the rules state set up as per normal FoGN rules, I am assuming they mean the defender deploys three units first and then the attacker and so on?

Yes JJ, that is it.