Keeping FOG N growing

[sonic]

How do you think equal points armies might work for scenarios in tournaments? One of the attractions of scenarios is asymmetrical forces but with objectives matched to force size. Might the scoring in a tournament operate like a kind of
" handicap"? Smaller force more points scored?

The scenarios I am basing my comments on are from FOW tournaments which have playtested scenarios for equal sized forces. If you get a chance have a look at the FOW main ruleset for how they do it. To be tournament viable, scenarios developed would have to be able to work with equal sized armies (points wise).

With regard to pre-set terrain I assume that the organisers/game masters would set that up? Charles Grant Jnr's works on scenarios under the WRG banner provide a pretty good generic model to build from for " horse and musket" . From what you say I would assume FOW tournaments already do this? I have never gotten into FOW but it looked that way at a couple of UK events I attended .

Yes, the organiser or Tournament Organiser (TO) presets the terrain or at least approves/enables the pre-set terrain and of course the players then will randomly be assigned tables for each round.

[MikeHorah]

How do you think equal points armies might work for scenarios in tournaments? One of the attractions of scenarios is asymmetrical forces but with objectives matched to force size. Might the scoring in a tournament operate like a kind of
" handicap"? Smaller force more points scored?

The scenarios I am basing my comments on are from FOW tournaments which have playtested scenarios for equal sized forces. If you get a chance have a look at the FOW main ruleset for how they do it. To be tournament viable, scenarios developed would have to be able to work with equal sized armies (points wise).

With regard to pre-set terrain I assume that the organisers/game masters would set that up? Charles Grant Jnr's works on scenarios under the WRG banner provide a pretty good generic model to build from for " horse and musket" . From what you say I would assume FOW tournaments already do this? I have never gotten into FOW but it looked that way at a couple of UK events I attended .

Yes, the organiser or Tournament Organiser (TO) presets the terrain or at least approves/enables the pre-set terrain and of course the players then will randomly be assigned tables for each round.

See the Scenarios thread - we are beginning to get some traction and a range of ideas emerging from and in a variety of directions

[Amra]

This discussion is great and very positive .

As a side note we are about to run a scenario based tournament in Melbourne Australia , ( see the Tournaments section) . I know some of our NZ brethren will be coming so it will be a good oppourtunity to see how the rules go and create play tested scenarios ( I'm sure we'll post them after the tournament )

[rhyswelyn]

Hi

I was introduced to fogn at warfare last year where, without ever playing it before and I borrowed army (cheers much appreciated) I entered the tournament. While I came last I had a great time, everyone was helpful and great company and I became hooked. I am now on my second army and entrance money paid for britcon. and would hate to see its demise. The club I game at here in Cardiff primarily play shako I mention this only because it's popularity appears supported by the scenario book and a strong yahoo forum. The other thing that appears to put people off is the cost of the armies. I have been told by a number of would be players the amount of figures and the cost of buying three books is off putting. While I like the feel and visual impact of the game with the figures and wouldn't suggest changing I would welcome a 2nd edition in a cheaper paperback / PDF format. Also do we have any stats for the number of people who download the quick play sample rules from the slitherine site? Hope to see you all in Manchester

[MikeHorah]

Hi

I was introduced to FOG(N) at warfare last year where, without ever playing it before and I borrowed army (cheers much appreciated) I entered the tournament. While I came last I had a great time, everyone was helpful and great company and I became hooked. I am now on my second army and entrance money paid for britcon. and would hate to see its demise. The club I game at here in Cardiff primarily play shako I mention this only because it's popularity appears supported by the scenario book and a strong yahoo forum. The other thing that appears to put people off is the cost of the armies. I have been told by a number of would be players the amount of figures and the cost of buying three books is off putting. While I like the feel and visual impact of the game with the figures and wouldn't suggest changing I would welcome a 2nd edition in a cheaper paperback / PDF format. Also do we have any stats for the number of people who download the quick play sample rules from the slitherine site? Hope to see you all in Manchester

Glad you enjoy it.

I am surprised the number of figures needed to play FOG(N) is a barrier for some as I don't think more are needed than for most Napoleonic games and indeed other periods. And 15mm is not too extortionate,10mm and 5mm even less so. One can spend as much on paints and brushes and basing materials sometimes when you get down to those scales - and on terrain.

If someone wants to model the full range in the books well yes and/or in 28mm metal or buy them professionally painted . But years ago 25mm metal figures were much more extensive relatively too and the quality (and range) of 28mm and today's plastics in 25/28 mm is very high compared to the old Airfix 1/72nd scale soft plastic.

I have come across a number of people for whom it was an incentive dig out old 25mm figures from wayback from the garage loft etc. I tried SHAKO a few years back but was not happy with it and did not feel it worked at all for pre 1804 and then ( mid 90's at least) there were no comprehensive lists which is what many gamers ( including myself )crave.

It is true that commercially produced rule sets and lists have become expensive over recent years and FoG(N) followed the style set by FOG(AM) and FOG(R) in that respect ( and Warhammer ) . But that was set up as the first model for that " brand" in 2008 and before the credit crunch etc began to bite and a plainer style seems right now. Ironically however sales of a simpler cheaper less " fancy" set might have actually have been lower - in the US at any rate - given the FOG stable's existing footprint. But those were all publishing decisions well beyond the powers of mere author.

[SirGarnet]

Someone today mentioned a reason for not seriously trying FoGN is the lack of national characteristics - all nations are basically the same.*

This got me thinking about finding out what are the various objections and obstacles a well as the evaluation and response to these. It is very relevant to this topic, but perhaps needs another thread discussing obstacles to trying and playing FoGN.


*"True? Seems to me yes in the sense of a bonus or malus assigned to all units of a particular ethnicity or nationality.
Seems to me no in that the sets of armies a nation has, and even individual armies, have a different character from most other armies in the way the lists and special restriction rules apply.

[MikeHorah]

Someone today mentioned a reason for not seriously trying FoGN is the lack of national characteristics - all nations are basically the same.*

This got me thinking about finding out what are the various objections and obstacles a well as the evaluation and response to these. It is very relevant to this topic, but perhaps needs another thread discussing obstacles to trying and playing FoGN.


*"True? Seems to me yes in the sense of a bonus or malus assigned to all units of a particular ethnicity or nationality.
Seems to me no in that the sets of armies a nation has, and even individual armies, have a different character from most other armies in the way the lists and special restriction rules apply.

It may their ( "Someone today") expectation of national characteristics and the kinds of differences that would throw up are just not there to be built in for the period,or not sufficiently for their taste, or are based on myth and anecdote, or are harder to model at some levels of games than others. The lower down the scale of engagement the easier to build that in it I would say .Ours is grand tactical model and focused on combined arms. A bit mechanistic maybe for them- not enough hats on sabres -not enough romance ( always a dubious element when ascribed to war) ? If so fair comment I would say.

And it changes. The French armies of the Republic of 1792-95 were different from those of 1803-07 and 1813 different again . So just what are the common " national" bits of those? Also the Prussia of 1806 versus the Prussia of 1813.

We cover 23 years of history in Europe where the basic technology hardly varies and where over that period the way armies were organised and fought gradually merged into one style . And it is much harder with the wide range of nations involved to identify consistent and different national characteristics for all- other than by battle outcomes some of which are scarce- Sardinia Piedmont, the Batavian Republic, Denmark etc . France, GB Russia maybe.

The AM period covering over 4 millenia and world wide has much more scope for wider variations ,albeit some of them arguable for want of evidence. In drawing up the lists for FOG(N) I was conscious of not putting in variations based on personal prejudices and half baked unresearched assumptions - no hiding place for those I felt

And it is also a game. You could assign some nations a " Combat effectiveness(CE) " bonus - such as the late Col Dupuy's concept ( (in "Numbers Predictions and War") which identified a significant CE value for German arms from 1860-1945 ( see also his "A Genius for War").I am doing that for my own Western Desert rules for example for DAK, ANZAC, British and Italian infantry in assault situations . The CE is often a way of trying to reflect hard-to-measure and model factors like junior leadership.


But that would probably put more people off than it won over. Too much skewing is bad for a game design especially one based on a points system. Remove the latter and some things might be more possible.And is it a game or a simulation? My own personal rules and games tend to be simulations and are far too complex and process dense to be foisted on others for the kinds of games the FOG series provides.

That said it may be the main categories we use - Elan and Training and having three classes of each plus irregular - are insufficiently nuanced for some . We did create the Reformed and Unreformed concept . I would have quite liked to do more with the French republican armies and the emigre and insurgency armies- Serbia, the Tyrol. Not sure exactly what but there are ways. Maybe the continuing discussion over the treatment of light infantry and infantry deployed in open order will support some greater variations.

[Blathergut]

From the various games using other rules I have played at conventions before/after running a FoG(N) game, I'd say FoG(N) by far does an excellent job of giving each force it's own personality and characteristics whereas the other games were very much all blender-same in forces.

The ability to have units range from superior/average/poor and then veteran/drilled/conscript and toss in variations of guard makes for a unique flavour each battle.

[SirGarnet]

Thank you for the articulate comments. These points on FoGN should get more exposure.

Yes, forces in this era inherently tended to resemble each other due to technology and circumstances, so we don't see the typological variation represented in rules for other periods and players look to draw out points of differentiation.

To create flavor and tabletop comparative advantages among armies, rules have long drawn on stereotyped characteristics in the fashion of British +1 Firepower or French +1 Charge Elan. These are easily created, understood and played. Expansions of the concept include creating a set of attributes or special modifiers, or even special rules, for particular nations (or armies). As a matter of presentation and psychology, two modifiers that are functionally the same but given different "national" names can be seen as national differentiation. Form and presentation matters to how it is perceived. So FoG's more functional (or "clinical") approach using attributes, but without national tags, may appear to be lacking within this paradigm. Maybe we need to broaden the paradigm a little by refocusing the prospective player on the diversity of forces the FoGN rules can offer.

On the BG/unit level, there are different troop types, each with variations of weaponry, each with a defining combination of attributes as as Unreformed or Reformed, superior/average/poor Elan and then veteran/drilled/conscript/irregular Training, plus special Guard status and list specific requirements and restrictions that can create units that are in effect variants.

And that is just on the unit level.

I think one handicap is the common Napoleonic divisional-scale games giving a unit-focused and minor tactical frame of reference. Does this make prospects give little attention or weight to the division and corps level aspect of the game? A great deal of the variation in what we might describe as the characteristic behavior of armies of different nations (and indeed within the forces of a nation) was due to the different internal organizations of the units within those armies into brigade- division- or corps-size formations in consequence of different foundations in doctrine, experience, command structure, resources, circumstances etc. FoGN lists focus a great deal of attention on this, but it may escape notice if not highlighted.

The multiplicity of dimensions in which FoGN defines armies and their component formations and units offers the ability to represent a vast array of different forces which, as you say, feel different and may favor different tactical approaches.

This isn't exactly FAQ material, but communication of some of these concepts could help popularize the rules by opening up a more realistic view of what they offer

Rule Book Lists vs. List Books. Another and related problem with receptivity may be potential players looking with dissatisfaction at the somewhat generic lists in the rule book - never learning about the cornucopia of lists in the army list books where their issues may be are addressed. It should be easy to find out how comprehensive the list books are, but the Field of Glory site does not, for example, provide a list of the contents of Book II and III on their pages. That would be helpful, as well as mentioning the extensive sublist and allied contingent potential. Instead, there is a general description that does not do justice to the books.

Introducing Players to FoGN Although FoGN is streamlined in some ways compared with FoG and FoGR, it is also more dense with rules and special cases and therefore tougher to just read through. There have been complaints about layout, but that's always a tough choice in drafting rules - I would just want a more detailed supplemental index.

I support the usual advice to try and to learn by joining a game alongside another player using the QRS. However, I find that having a detailed Sequence of Play handy to follow is more essential than the QRS. Particularly if the player is familiar with other Field of Glory rules, this keeps the steps and the differences between the rulesets straight and avoids unnecessary frequent recourse to the rulebook interrupting play. It would be nice for the buzz to focus on "easy to play" rather than "hard to read."

[MikeHorah]

All points well and cogently made MikeK.

I think it is true that the unit focus of FOG(N) - and other miniatures games - can sometimes obscure other higher command level things one wants to model. Part of the problem is games between just two people . No human chain of command ( and wargamers can be perversely bad at following orders.

But that said many gamers do like to feel some sense of ownership and character in their units especially in this and the immediately preceding period of history in Europe- when units became distinctive regiments . We Brits ( and I guess others too, to be fair) like to field the Coldstreams, the Black Watch the 95th etc. History and memory - for some of us the regiments of our ancestors who went " over the hills and far away " (that song in Sharpe is called " Beat the Drum" and dates from Queen Anne by the way). Folk memories can be stirred whenever the regimental marches of our county regiments are played and their colours with the battle honours unfurled. A remnant of a quintessence of Britishness? They usually bring an unmanly dampness to my eyes.

FoG(N) does not do much to satisfy that passion I have to admit- a bit too cerebral? You need a Btn level game for that I think.

And that relates to the national characteristics thing for tis era . Is it national or is it really regimental? It is interesting that the modern US Army imbues Divisions with regimental characteristics but in the Civil War it was Brigades - the size of regiments - that seem to have acquired them.

On the rules themselves- yes I would expunge the lists from the 2nd ed. They were only there for publishing timetable reasons .

Re the rules I am constantly surprised about how what appeared to me to be simple and elegant top down design could become so complex in terms of queries and adjudications on precise movements and interrelationships - how like an 18th century drill manual and book of regulations we are making it. Maybe we need a separate bit of the document as " reglements" advising how to manoeuvre the units in conformity with the game system.

Anyone care to try? Needs players who have used it a lot - which I haven't- my games are best when I can manoeuvre well away from the tactical forward edge when I invariably go completely wrong much of the time. Much better C-in-C or Chief of Staff than Divisional commander.

[Amra]

I try to choose armies that reflect the national differences . So rather than generic "I have 3 of these with a large shock of these and commanders who are .." in every army ,I try to look at the army and its commanders and reflect their style in the list selection .I dont need the rules to reflect the differences , which are more subjective.

I then try to work out how to play that "style". Of course thats the theory , the practice of doing that is challenging but thats where I find my interest and gives the rules "repeat playability " for me.

IMO FoG (A/M) is dominated by a certain type of army combination that will win , one of FoG N s strengths is I can win with an unreformed defensive army or using a small attacking force ( actually I cant seem to win with either but thats more my failing than the rules )

[MikeHorah]

I try to choose armies that reflect the national differences . So rather than generic "I have 3 of these with a large shock of these and commanders who are .." in every army ,I try to look at the army and its commanders and reflect their style in the list selection .I dont need the rules to reflect the differences , which are more subjective.

I then try to work out how to play that "style". Of course thats the theory , the practice of doing that is challenging but thats where I find my interest and gives the rules "repeat playability " for me.

IMO FoG (A/M) is dominated by a certain type of army combination that will win , one of FoG N s strengths is I can win with an unreformed defensive army or using a small attacking force ( actually I cant seem to win with either but thats more my failing than the rules )

Pretty similar really. I don't start with " what kind of army is going to win." either. I like to try the various lists - do a max bases points army for one ( say 1812 Westphalia) and then chose an equivalent historical opposing list ( Russian infantry Corps 1812) - doing that today- and play that out ( solo and these are usually 25mm ) .

I do find the initiative roll can make a huge difference and the fall of shot of the terrain in that kind of semi -random solo game. The 1799 -1800 French army of the Rhine against the Austrian equivalent did badly when it lost the initiative and the terrain was bunched on the attacking side . Nowhere to hide and the Austrian cavalry is dominant . When it was the reverse with a strict 800 point max with the French having the initiative different result.

Of course would be different with an opponent .

Re FOG(AM) ( not solo those) I tend to stick to armies within the same book so that any hidden rules bias tends to disappear. That said it is hard for any ancients rules set not to favour Principate Romans, there is just much flexibility.

[Amra]

I love the pre 1800 period and I find the points paid for a better General is worth it for those armies that need to be attacking

[SirGarnet]

There is a lot to the unit-identity point. Part of it is having names attached, the other is recognizing achievements, such as painting on battle honor markings for distinguished service, and maybe one of various bonuses of some kind for distinguished service of a favorite and distinguished unit. Maybe not a good fit for the rules, but for campaigns or just among friends units might acquire a merited reputation and an army gradually accumulate some recognized distinctions.

E.g., A named regiment/demi-brigade with particular dash might earn 1 reroll on CMTs to charge home or advance, steadfastness a +1 DRM to a CT usable once per game etc.

This is just an interesting idea but secondary to the main issues of how to communicate the virtues of the game.

[MikeHorah]

There is a lot to the unit-identity point. Part of it is having names attached, the other is recognizing achievements, such as painting on battle honor markings for distinguished service, and maybe one of various bonuses of some kind for distinguished service of a favorite and distinguished unit. Maybe not a good fit for the rules, but for campaigns or just among friends units might acquire a merited reputation and an army gradually accumulate some recognized distinctions.

E.g., A named regiment/demi-brigade with particular dash might earn 1 reroll on CMTs to charge home or advance, steadfastness a +1 DRM to a CT usable once per game etc.

This is just an interesting idea but secondary to the main issues of how to communicate the virtues of the game.

Yes I have done that in a campaign - not with FoG(N) but the principle is the same. Allowing the winner in a battle to promote a unit, sometimes two to the next level (not usually to Guards) if they had met certain criteria and units that fell below 50% were demoted a level to reflect " dilution " via replacements from a pool- provided they have an LOC on the map.

Of course FOG(N) doesn't have % losses as such - it's all or nothing so you'd need to find another way.

Mind you I doubt there is any often used unit among mine that has not run away at some time . Wellington said something like
" Oh they all run . I don't mind so long as they come back"

Still I don't think smashing or melting down one in ten of run away Romans is a good technique . Doesn't really encourage the others:lol:

[Saxonian]

In the couple of campaigns I have been involved in, we kept note of what happened during a battle and that was applied by the campaign moderator.
Specifically, whether you won or lost (and how badly - pursuit etc.), which units wavered (and how often), which units broke, and which units performed particularly well.

In the moderator debrief after the battle we would be told that our corps had to lose 'X' number of points, and from which units if some had a particularly bad day.
We had a fair amount of leeway in re-arranging our force. A large unit might become small, two small units with losses combine into one large, a small cav unit that lost bases could use the remainder as attachments, etc.
Also, we would occasionally get that little boost when a unit which performed really well gets upgraded - there was a unit of superior irreg Cossacks at one point!!

Finally, there would be reinforcements during the course of the campaign as well.

This system works really well, as even a winning army will take losses. The two campaign mods would need to explain how they decided on these losses, promotions and reinforcements - dice? bribes? observe the flight patterns of birds? read the entrails of a sacrificial goat?
Such things are beyond the ken of a mere mortal such as myself.

[BrettPT]

.

[BrettPT]

Regarding attrition, in our 1813 campaign we covered this by dealing in bases, rather than units. Basically troops map moved as 'formations' (either a Corps, or a detached division).
Divisions were made up of bases and the player could form the bases within a division into units before a battle as he saw fit (including 1-base-short understrength units that started the game spent). A unit was elan/training rated as the lowest base it contained (ie if you made up a unit of 3 bases of av/vet and 1 base of sup/conscript, your unit would be average conscripts).

If a unit broke but rallied during a battle, it permanently lost a base. Units destroyed lost 1/2 their bases, as did units in rout at the time your army broke. Additionally there were pursuit losses (based on the number of non-spent cavalry bases in each army at the end of the battle, with modifiers for Commanders, time of day, terrain, etc).

Force marching attrition or being out of supply could lose you bases as well.

I've copied some of the relevant campaign rules that we used below (it's long - stop reading now if you are not interested). I'm happy to email the full set of campaign rules to anyone interested.

Cheers
Brett

2.6 Divisions are not formed by units, but by bases ie:
1st division:
16 bases line infantry (average drilled)
2 bases field artillery (average drilled)
1 base Jaeger (average drilled)
2 bases landwehr cavalry (average conscript lancers)

2.8 You do not purchase attachments (other than BCs). Any artillery, light infantry or cavalry base in a division can be used as an attachment when deployed for tabletop. Such attachments (other than a BC) do not replace a base but instead make up one of the number of bases in the unit.

2.10 When you come to fight a table battle, you form the bases of each division into specific units. Units are usually 4 or 6 bases strong for infantry and cavalry, 2 or 3 bases for artillery.
Infantry and Cavalry may however be formed into under strength 3 or 5 base units. Under strength units start a battle spent.
Any stray bases of troops in a division not used to form units do not deploy on tabletop but are assumed left off-table on rear area guard duty.
A unit made up of bases (including any attachment) of differing quality takes the grading of the worst base in the unit (ie 3 bases of average veterans and a base of poor conscripts = a poor conscript unit).

2.11 A base represents a battalion of infantry, a squadron of cavalry or a battery of artillery.

8. Post Battle

8.2 At nightfall, either side may decide to withdraw overnight, retiring 1 hex back along their line of communication. Alternatively both sides may elect to stay in position for a 2nd day of battle.
If there is to be a 2nd day of battle, this will be an early start battle (see 7.5) and both sides will likely be fatigued after the previous days combat - or exhausted if the formation was already fatigued during the previous day’s battle (see 9.1).

8.3 There is no pursuit against a side that withdraws overnight.

8.4 If a side breaks, then the battle is over. The broken army will become ‘shattered’ and retreat one hex back down their line of communication. If their LOC on the tabletop has been captured by the enemy, a broken army will retreat in a different direction. The umpire will tell you which way you retreat. A formation not retreating down their line of supply will need to take an immediate additional attrition test.

8.5 If an army breaks while troops are still off table, the off table troops will retreat along with the rest. Such formations will not, however become ‘exhausted’ as they did not take part in the battle. Cavalry from such a formation is however counted in the number of fresh cavalry bases available to a defeated player for pursuit purposes (see 8.6(c) below).

8.6 An army that breaks its opponent may pursue as follows:
(a) Count up the number of cavalry bases the victor has, from formations that started the battle fresh or fatigued, and which end the battle in units neither spent nor broken.
(b) Count up the number of cavalry bases that the broken army has from units that end the battle neither spent nor broken.
(c) The victor rolls a pursuit dice for each cavalry base in (a) the exceeds (b), and inflicts losses (captures) the number of bases indicted by the table below. The umpire will decide which of the enemy bases are captured, depending on the type and quality of the fleeing army, and the position of troops at the end of the battle.

PURSUIT TABLE
Die Roll 1 2-4 5 6
Enemy bases captured none 1 2 3
Modifiers: Veteran pursuers re-roll 1s Conscript pursuers re-roll 6s

A single Cavalry Division Commander from the victorious army may lead the pursuit, and may re-roll 1 dice for each of his levels.
A cavalry BC from a unit that is involved in the pursuit (ie was not exhausted at the start of the battle or spent at the end of it) may re-roll the dice of one base from his unit.
If the battle ends within 2 turns of nightfall, 2 is subtracted from the number of every pursuit dice.

The following additional modifiers effect each pursuit dice roll:
 Battle ends in the first 4 turns of a (non-late start) game +1
 Battle ends within 2 turns of nightfall -2
 On-table LOC is occupied by the enemy +2
 Battle in Woods or Mountain hex – 1
 Minor River in hex to the rear of defeated army +1
 Major river in hex to rear of defeated army +3


8.7 Single bases lost during the battle that were caused by a rout are permanent losses to the army. Destroyed units, or those in rout at the point your army breaks, lose ½ of their bases (losses rounded up for any unit that started the game as a 3 or 5 base spent unit).

8.8 An unbroken army will be fatigued after a battle, or exhausted if they fought the battle while fatigued (see 9.1). A broken army will be Shattered after a battle.

9. Formation State
9.1 A formation will be in one of the following states, which will affect how they perform on the table:

Fresh Normal rules apply

Fatigued Need a 6 to pass a CMT unless led by a Commander. A formation will usually be fatigued after a forced march or after fighting a battle.

Exhausted Unless led by a Commander, need a 6 to pass a CMT or a CT. A CT that requires a natural 6 to pass will automatically fail (unless led by a Commander). A formation will usually become exhausted after fighting a battle while fatigued.

Shattered Will automatically fail all CMT and CT tests, unless led by a Commander when these tests may be passed on a 6. A formation will only become shattered after being broken in a battle.

9.2 A unit led on table by a Charismatic Commander can ignore all effects of being fatigued, exhausted or shattered.

9.3 It takes a rest day for a formation to recover one status level (ie from fatigued to fresh, or from shattered to exhausted).

11. Transferring Troops between Formations

11.1 You can transfer a Division from one Corps to another. For one week after the transfer takes place, the newly attached Division counts as an Allied Division of their new CC as the troops familiarise with and bed in the new structure.

11.2 Bases can be transferred from one Division to another inside the same Corps. Transferred bases will count as Allied Bases in that Division for 1 week after the transfer. Any unit on table that contains Allied Bases will require 2 command points from the DC to take a CMT.

11.3 Any garrison bases picked up by a Division (other than the one which dropped them off) will count as Allied Bases for 1 week while they bed in.

11.4 Commanders cannot be transferred or replaced, and new Divisions or Corps cannot be created. Any Division which falls below 6 bases is disbanded, the DC is lost and his troops must be transferred into another Division in the same Corps.

11.5 If there is only 1 Division in a Corps and this falls below 6 bases, the Corps is disbanded and the troop bases will become garrisons of the nearest friendly town.

[richafricanus]

To revisit the original point I made in this topic,
"The biggest issue with FOG N seems to be with the multiple grey areas in the rules that need continuous clarification from Terry, the generally poor layout of the rules meaning you don't always find things where you'd expect them, and the number of errata that are around, some still "what Terry said in a thread" and some official."

Even though we probably play a FOG N game once a week on average here, the above problem continues to exist and limits the marketability of the rules. When you're at the club and two experienced players are poring over the rules, printed clarifications and FAQs trying to find a solution to an on table issue, it's really off putting to potential recruits observing the game. We're now up to 3 pages of local clarifications from the forum or otherwise that haven't made it into the official clarifications. And now with the updated QRS we even have rules on the QRS that don't exist anywhere else in the rules.

Is there ever going to be an update to the rules that cleans them up or will they slowly dwindle and be replaced when something better written comes along (even if it's unlikely to be as good as this great rule set!)?

[bahdahbum]

I do agree