Restricted Area

[tgreene]

I have a question about the restricted area on page 74 of the rules. One of four things a battlegroup in the restricted area is allowed to do is it is move further away from the enemy battlegroup pinning it. So far, so good. It then says further on that a battlegroup moving further away from a battlegroup pinning it must remain at least partly in front of the enemy battlegroup which has pinned it and to which it is responding. The problem here is that it is not clear, exactly, what is meant by "at least partly in front of" from the text of the rules. Just how much is "at least partly in front of"? Half the battlegroup? One base of the battlegroup? One corner of the battlegroup? A sliver of the battlegroup? There is a diagram which, one assumes, is meant to clarify this question on the same page 74 of the FoG rules. The diagram shows that one battlegroup, labelled A, has half its bases in front of an enemy battlegroup within that battlegroup's restricted zone. It has opted to wheel away from the enemy battlegroup. The diagram shows battlegroup A in its final position with its nearest corner further away from the enemy battlegroup and at least partly in front of the enemy battlegroup (and presumably now outside the restricted zone). The portion of unit A still partly in front of the enemy battlegroup is slightly more than half its bases. This would indicate to me that a significant part of the battlegroup must remain partly in front of the enemy at the end of the move not just a corner of the battlegroup or even less. Is this correct? People I have been playing FoG against have been moving completely away from the restricted zone of the battlegroup pinning them arguing that so long as a small corner of their battlegroup's base is still in front of the pinning battlegroup they responded to it is thus a legal move. This does not seem to agree at all with the diagram on page 74 of the rulebook. Can one of the rules authors clarify this question for me. I am about ready to stop playing FoG.

Tim Greene

[david53]

While moving further away any part ie a mm must remain in front of the pinning group. It all depends on you how much of your BG stays in front lots or as stated a mm.

Why are you ready to stop playing FOG then.

BTW the authors might not be able to answer but I'm sure there are plenty on here who can give you a correct answer.

[BlackPrince]

If you are in the restricted zone; can you turn 90 degrees to the enemy BG and move parallel to it as longer as your BG ends it's move further away? It seems silly for LH not to be able to move their 7 inches long the enemy Bg's front and be 3 or 4 inches clear of the enemy front. They will always have to retire from the front of the enemy it maybe at angle but it will always be to the rear of your BG. I makes it a lot harder for LH or Cav to squeeze through gaps in the enemy line.

[tgreene]

Thanks for your quick response. To answer your question why I am going to stop playing FoG it is because of interpretations like the one you just gave. To look at it that way violates the spirit if not the letter of the restricted area rule. The purpose of the restricted area should be to pin and restrict battlegroups (BG's) in close proximity to the enemy. But if all you have to do is leave 1mm of your base in front of the unit that pinned you, you aren't really pinned. BG's can slip around like quicksilver (especially LF and LH BG's). Yes LH were hard for heavier troops to pin down, but that is what evade moves are for.

In any event the rules are not clear on this point and it could plausibly be argued that the interpretation you gave is not correct. There is no clear definition of what "partly in front" means, specifically. In such cases diagrams usually are given to illustrate the point. Usually if the text is not clear you go by the diagram. I would think if the rules author meant as little as 1mm of the BG's base qualified as being "partly in front" it would have been shown in the illustrated example which shows all three BG's that are pinned having quite a bit more than 1mm or 2mm of their base in front of the pinning units. According to the diagram on page 74 the interpretation that 1mm of the BG's base being to the front of the pinning BG constitutes "partly in front" would seem to be wrong.

It might be argued that light troops should be able to wiggle out of tight spots. But I have seen drilled heavy foot do the same thing in FoG and that is just wrong.

If your read on this is correct there doesn' t seem to be much point in having a restricted area rule at all. And FoG becomes just another set of gimmicky tournament play rules with about as much relevance for historically accurate ancients table top wargaming as a game of Yahtzee. So it's Impetus and WAB for me.

[david53]

To look at it that way violates the spirit if not the letter of the restricted area rule.

.

How so?

If you get to close with Battle troops to the enemy how can you get away and why would you.

Light troops do as they would in real life, move forwards and back not pinned by anyone.

I'm sure you'll enjoy other games but why bother to register here if you don't like FOG?

[Mehrunes]

@tgreene

Then what is "partly in front" for you? Whole the BG (obviously not), half the BG, 10mm, 5mm? Why not 1mm?
It still restricts the BG's movement, maybe just not by the degree you obviously wished for.

The rules are very clear but you seem not to like them.
If that is a reason for you to completely abandon FoG and play other games (which some having no restricted area at all!), then there you go. Have fun.

[hammy]

"Partly: in some measure or degree; in part; not fully or completely"

That is the dictionary definition.

So BG can turn 90 and then wheel away and leave just a corner in front of the enemy.

You do need to remember though that when turning 90 or 180 you can then only make one wheel, this can significanlty limit options.

A BG of light troops that is pinned by heavies cannot 'slip past' them without first moving back and getting to a position where they are not in the restricted zone and probably so that he heavies cannot repin them in their next move.

Yes, lights are slippery but my understanding of history is that they were.

If that is enough to make you not want to play FoG that is your choice. I know that from my reading of several other rulesets there are mechanisms in them that make me not want to play them so I can see how the same can be true for you and FoG.

[RobKhan]

"....in front of...." seems to be the definition issue here.

Does it mean inside an area drawn by extending a line forward from both side edges of a BG ? Or does it mean being forward of a line extended sideways from the front edge of the BG?

Both definitions can be used for "...in front of..." partly or otherwise.

I like FoG, but love to hate poor definitions. I've played with too many of'em in my long years.

RobKhan

[philqw78]

To answer your question why I am going to stop playing FoG it is because of interpretations like the one you just gave. To look at it that way violates the spirit if not the letter of the restricted area rule.

Just remember, if nobody else agrees with your interpretation they are all wrong. You are right.

In any event the rules are not clear on this point and it could plausibly be argued that the interpretation you gave is not correct. There is no clear definition of what "partly in front" means, specifically.

Hmm, define partly, obviously the OED disagrees with you as well. It must be wrong.

And FoG becomes just another set of gimmicky tournament play rules with about as much relevance for historically accurate ancients table top wargaming as a game of Yahtzee. So it's Impetus and WAB for me.

Sorry you are wrong here. WAB historical? In fact if any set of table top rules gave a hisorical result the pentagon would be using them now and I would shove rusty forks in my eyes after reading them so as not to ruin the perfect moment. They are all games. We just need to find one with rules we can agree on. (or agree to the ruling of a third party.)

[hammy]

"....in front of...." seems to be the definition issue here.

Does it mean inside an area drawn by extending a line forward from both side edges of a BG ? Or does it mean being forward of a line extended sideways from the front edge of the BG?

Both definitions can be used for "...in front of..." partly or otherwise.

I like FoG, but love to hate poor definitions. I've played with too many of'em in my long years.

It does indeed mean inside an area drawn by extending both side edges.

I have never had an issue with this nor have any of my opponents but on closer inspection of the rules in other places this is refered to as 'directly infront' so perhaps things would be clearer if the word directly was used.

There is only one place where infront means infront of a line extending the front edge, that is in the rear support rules and it clearly states that in this case the supported BG must be in front of the line, not infront of the supporting BG.

[RobKhan]

So this is to be taken as the intent of the authors?

If the BG has any part of a base directly in front of any part of a front edge of the BG with the restricted area it complies with the rules intent.

RobKhan

[rogerg]

Whatever the intent of the rules authors, that is what is written. Any rules with measurements will see occasions when something is on the limit.
I've played dozens of games of FoG, as have most of my opponents. This rule never seems to give a problem. It is quite common for players to position troops so that they are only fractionally ahead of an enemy BG. It might seem unusual when you first see it done. However, it does make the mechanics of the rules work. It isn't gamesmanship, rule exploitation, just normal play.

One of the best things about FoG is that it was written by experienced wargamers. If the game is played to the letter of the rules, it still plays well. In fact, this is how we play it. I have played in many competitions, several times against three of those contributing to this thread. We're not from the same club. We just play the rules as written and they work.

[expendablecinc]

So this is to be taken as the intent of the authors?

If the BG has any part of a base directly in front of any part of a front edge of the BG with the restricted area it complies with the rules intent.

RobKhan

Dont know but is makes them chargable with a straight ahead charge and likely its a legal flank or rear charge so they can only evade away from the direction of the charge so cant evade out of the direction of the charge either.

anthony

[dave_r]

So this is to be taken as the intent of the authors?

If the BG has any part of a base directly in front of any part of a front edge of the BG with the restricted area it complies with the rules intent.

RobKhan

Having played against all three of the Authors then yes I can confirm this was their intent. As well as how it was written.

[david53]

Whatever the intent of the rules authors, that is what is written. Any rules with measurements will see occasions when something is on the limit.
I've played dozens of games of FoG, as have most of my opponents. This rule never seems to give a problem.

Likewise its just a natural thing to do maybe easier to understand the more FOG games played.

[david53]

One of the best things about FoG is that it was written by experienced wargamers. If the game is played to the letter of the rules, it still plays well. In fact, this is how we play it. I have played in many competitions, several times against three of those contributing to this thread. We're not from the same club. We just play the rules as written and they work.

It seems to work very well from my point now weres that Umpire again

[RobKhan]

I agree with you, I was just trying to focus on the issue for tgreene's benefit and to make quite sure of what "... in front of..." meant. I wasn't being critical of the rules.

Hey, I'm not a peasant anymore

RobKhan

[david53]

I wasn't being critical of the rules.

RobKhan

Feel free to discuss parts of the rules you either might not agree with or like I know people on here have had many discussions about parts of the rules they feel could do with changing.

Well done with not being a peasant anymore

[tgreene]

"....in front of...." seems to be the definition issue here.

It does indeed mean inside an area drawn by extending both side edges.

I have never had an issue with this nor have any of my opponents but on closer inspection of the rules in other places this is refered to as 'directly infront' so perhaps things would be clearer if the word directly was used.

There is only one place where infront means infront of a line extending the front edge, that is in the rear support rules and it clearly states that in this case the supported BG must be in front of the line, not infront of the supporting BG.

If "directly in front" were to be substituted for "at least partly in front of" I think that would clarify matters. But it would be better still to also specify how much of a BG must remain directly in front. If it is in fact "any part" I would say that the restricted area is not very restricted at all. If there is to be a restricted area it ought to require the restricted BG to remain mostly to the front of the unit restricting it. Otherwise, what is the point of having a restricted area rule at all?

TG

[tgreene]

To answer your question why I am going to stop playing FoG it is because of interpretations like the one you just gave. To look at it that way violates the spirit if not the letter of the restricted area rule.

Just remember, if nobody else agrees with your interpretation they are all wrong. You are right.

In any event the rules are not clear on this point and it could plausibly be argued that the interpretation you gave is not correct. There is no clear definition of what "partly in front" means, specifically.

Hmm, define partly, obviously the OED disagrees with you as well. It must be wrong.

And FoG becomes just another set of gimmicky tournament play rules with about as much relevance for historically accurate ancients table top wargaming as a game of Yahtzee. So it's Impetus and WAB for me.

Sorry you are wrong here. WAB historical? In fact if any set of table top rules gave a hisorical result the pentagon would be using them now and I would shove rusty forks in my eyes after reading them so as not to ruin the perfect moment. They are all games. We just need to find one with rules we can agree on. (or agree to the ruling of a third party.)

In response to the first quote: Well I guess what I meant here was not that all of you who seem to have no problem with the way the restricted rule are wrong and I am right. That is not the case. What I meant to say I suppose was that I wish the FoG rules had been written to discourage gamesmanship. I like a rules set that anticipates the cheesy things that might be tried and then makes them impractical to do. For example, having a rule that gives a penalty in close combat for fighting in bad going to both units (if they both would normally suffer in effectiveness from fighting in bad going) even if only one of them is in the bad going like the rules set La Salle (it's for Napoleonics) does.
In response to the second quote: What I meant by not clear was not the literal definition of "partly" but the practical definition of how much constitutes it in this case so as to avoid endless arguments by those who would argue "any part can mean partly". Of course it can. That's the point. If the area is to be restrictive define specifically how it restricts.

In response to the third quote: That is true I must say. All rules sets are distortions. WAB does not pretend to be historically accurate though. FoG does.

TG