War of the Roses FOGR

Moderators: Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

Post Reply
Vespasian28
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:04 pm

War of the Roses FOGR

Post by Vespasian28 » Sat May 23, 2015 7:03 pm

Tried a game of Lancaster vs York today at the club using FOGR rules but the army lists of FOGAM.

A couple of thing to note:

Can you use the interpenetration of bill/bow as specified in the army lists or does the fact that the FOGR rules give no mention of special dispensations overrule this? We played without allowing it.

Secondly, bow fire appears utterly useless in FOGR causing not a single casualty and only about two cohesion tests. The game basically came to getting a result from melee rather than shooting.

Yorkists had a slight edge at conclusion so will have to give it another go.

daveallen
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 542
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:21 am

Re: War of the Roses FOGR

Post by daveallen » Tue May 26, 2015 11:01 pm

Vespasian28 wrote:Secondly, bow fire appears utterly useless in FOGR causing not a single casualty and only about two cohesion tests. The game basically came to getting a result from melee rather than shooting.
Bowfire is actually incredibly powerful in FoGR. For starters you get two ranks shooting at full effect. Then close range is 4" so you get at least one round of twice (or more) the shooting of muskets. And you hit most mounted on 4s instead of 5s.

Of course, they're at their worst in period because of the '-' for shooting armoured foot. But even that isn't too bad when you can get 28 dice per turn against one keil.

They're at their best used en masse when the law of averages will mean failed cohesion tests

Dave

PS It will be interesting to see what emerges at the Oxford Club's competition on 6 & 7 June - FoGR including FoGAM lists.

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: War of the Roses FOGR

Post by ravenflight » Wed May 27, 2015 12:55 am

daveallen wrote:
Vespasian28 wrote:Secondly, bow fire appears utterly useless in FOGR causing not a single casualty and only about two cohesion tests. The game basically came to getting a result from melee rather than shooting.
Bowfire is actually incredibly powerful in FoGR. For starters you get two ranks shooting at full effect. Then close range is 4" so you get at least one round of twice (or more) the shooting of muskets. And you hit most mounted on 4s instead of 5s.

Of course, they're at their worst in period because of the '-' for shooting armoured foot. But even that isn't too bad when you can get 28 dice per turn against one keil.

They're at their best used en masse when the law of averages will mean failed cohesion tests

Dave

PS It will be interesting to see what emerges at the Oxford Club's competition on 6 & 7 June - FoGR including FoGAM lists.
Yup - my Japanese would argue against bow being rubbish. I deliberately took the early period so that I could take a bow army. Especially the Ashigaru bowmen as Armoured bow!!! Throwing out 8 dice at 4's vs 2 or 3 dice at 5's... I know who I'd rather be :)

But yes, against armoured foot they are a bit less effective, but still not a bad buy.

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: War of the Roses FOGR

Post by ravenflight » Wed May 27, 2015 12:57 am

Vespasian28 wrote:Tried a game of Lancaster vs York today at the club using FOGR rules but the army lists of FOGAM.

A couple of thing to note:

Can you use the interpenetration of bill/bow as specified in the army lists or does the fact that the FOGR rules give no mention of special dispensations overrule this? We played without allowing it.
I think you're causing issues by using FoG:AM lists in a FoG:R rules set. I'd muck around a bit with it and go with something like the Henrican list (or is it Elizabethan?).

Bill & Bow being 1/2 Bow 1/2 HW.

That way you would have a fairly solid (against mounted) formation that can still fire, and no need for interpenetration.

Vespasian28
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:04 pm

Re: War of the Roses FOGR

Post by Vespasian28 » Wed May 27, 2015 2:53 pm

They're at their best used en masse when the law of averages will mean failed cohesion tests
True but in our game the battle lines were pretty equal so no chance of ganging up on one unit. I think the most die rolled against one unit was 10 which caused a test at least(which was passed) but that was about it. The other thing we noted was you definitely need stakes against mounted as there is no support shooting mechanism in FOGR.
I think you're causing issues by using FoG:AM lists in a FoG:R rules set. I'd muck around a bit with it and go with something like the Henrican list (or is it Elizabethan?).
We did look at the Early Henrician list which does not allow interpenetration which is why we went without. Neither does it have mixed units and the Elizabethan ones are a complex mixture of four different troop types.

An experiment worth persisting with we think. Overall we were happy with the result and read somewhere that the effect of both sides in the WotR having longbows effectively cancelled each other out which pretty much happened.

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: War of the Roses FOGR

Post by ravenflight » Thu May 28, 2015 1:17 am

Vespasian28 wrote:We did look at the Early Henrician list which does not allow interpenetration which is why we went without. Neither does it have mixed units and the Elizabethan ones are a complex mixture of four different troop types.

An experiment worth persisting with we think. Overall we were happy with the result and read somewhere that the effect of both sides in the WotR having longbows effectively cancelled each other out which pretty much happened.
Well, you don't have to have the complex Elizabethan 4 troop types. If you just took 1/2 of the man at arms and 1/2 of the bow and said that they had to be in 8 base formations with 4 man at arms and 4 bow, then you would cover the problem of needing stakes and also the interpenetration etc. It would also mean that the formation as a whole would be unarmoured (as the bow would not be classified as armoured under FoG:R), but once you got into hand to hand there would be some interesting mixups with some files being armoured or heavily armoured vs unarmoured. You would cut down on the mount of bowfire (as only 4 bows in the formation would mean that you would get less tests) but I think you'd get enough to swing things around a bit.

Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports (AAR's)”