So is v2 any good?

[madaxeman]

Tell you what, why don't you start a thread "is anyone on here breathing oxygen?". If you only get 2 or 3 replies perhaps you could conclude that the world has stopped breathing?

As well as "Yes" and "No", I think to be fair to everyone you'd need to include several further options on such a poll, the obvious ones being :

- I would like to try breathing oxygen, but unfortunately Oxygen(TM) is only available on Apple platforms and my respiratory system uses Android
- Only if I can pick up Oxygen on eBay for a lot less than it cost new 3 years ago
- Me and my friends plan to start breathing Oxygen in January 2013, but only if it's available in tinned form by the middle of December. Otherwise we will stick to Nitrogen.

[grahambriggs]

So only two or three people on here have actually played games with FOG2. That says something about the take up of the electronic version I suppose.

Rubbish. What this says is that 2 or 3 people on the forum have played games, have noticed this thread and have bothered to post!

Graham, there were over 10,000 posts on the FOG2 Beta testing forum. That shows that there were a lot of people with a lot to say about it before it came out. And I would think that most of the early adopters who have bought the electronic version are just the sort of people who would be posting on here. I think the fact that only a couple of people have commented on it in the month since it came out does say something about the take up.
Normally after a new version of such a popular set of rules is released you would expect a huge increase in forum postings. That has not happened.

Indeed there are that number of posts. I made a fair number of them and haven;'t bought the electronic version. But most of those are waiting for the paper book. Many people have commented that use of the electronic format is impractical for their gaming, and there are no v2 competitions as yet played. So I suspect a number of people who have bought electronically have done that to read through and spot the changes, but are not actually using the electronic format in games.

I doubt that electronic sales of the rules have been particularly high, and I suspect the paper version will sell significantly more than that. What I was trying to point out is that you can't tell what sales have been by seeing who posts on a forum.

[ShrubMiK]

I'm too busy smiling at Tim's additional poll options. Maybe I'm imagining it, but they seem carefully crafted with several specific forum dwellers in mind

[dugroz]

I too would like to hear early reviews. Seems like very little shared on impressions so far.

[babyshark]

I too would like to hear early reviews. Seems like very little shared on impressions so far.

My dead-tree copy will arrive in late December or early January, which means that I cannot offer any reviews. However, I did play several games during the beta testing process, and my impression at the time was that the changes were both useful and measured. I expect that it will turn out well.

Marc

[grahambriggs]

I too would like to hear early reviews. Seems like very little shared on impressions so far.

My dead-tree copy will arrive in late December or early January, which means that I cannot offer any reviews. However, I did play several games during the beta testing process, and my impression at the time was that the changes were both useful and measured. I expect that it will turn out well.

Marc

Same here. Though not everything that was tested in the beta rules will carry forward into the published set, there was a good focus on the areas they wanted to improve and why.

So, I'd be surprised if v2 was not a considerable improvement on v1. However, I can't tell what the overall impact of all the changes will be until I've got the paper version and played it a bit. It's clearly a rule system that is capable of producing a very good game, as FOGR uses the same basics and is excellent.

[Martin0112]

Well, one week ago we have run our first FOG V2.0 tournament in Germany.
I have done a (german) presentation upfront to show the major differences in V2 to everybody.
Then we played 4 rounds, in total 40 games on a weekend.
I felt like FOG, some changes are really minimal, but some are really changing the game.
This includes the powerful impact of elephants, in conjunction with the changes in the cohesion test.
It's really likely that you have to test after loosing impact against elephants (also against lancers and impact foot) on a 10 to survive.
The automatic -1 for loosing impact together with the -1 for getting 1HP2B is reducing your cohesion quickly, and the -1 for loosing vs. some troops makes it even harder to survive.

The melee is much more relaxed, we often had fights, where you got nearly no Minus, as the 1HP2B is not that easy to get.

I expect bigger BG's in the future

The changes in movement is interesting and not only affecting skirmishers, as several players expected.

But we also encountered a very strange situation.
We have cavalry evading against heavy foot, so they have been finally about 3 MU away from the enemy, having their back turned to the enemy.
In V1 the only option for them was to turn 180°next turn.
In V2 I have the funny option to do a CMT and then moving 2 MU backwards towards the enemy!
Its even more strange as I cannot turn 180° and move with this BG.
It looks strange and it feels incorrect, but I think this is covered by the rules, correct?

BTW, the errata to be found in another thread here, when will this be included in an updated iPAD or PC-version?
The problem with the wrong game setup (who can have a river, coast or village) was giving us lots of discussions on nearly every game setup.
I assume that the player without initiative never can choose river, coast or village, is this correct (page 21-4)?
This also means that the player without initiative on a developed terrain cannot select the compulsory village, but this is not stated.

[Vespasian28]

The melee is much more relaxed

Visions of the doughty Spartans at Thermopylae fighting off the Persian hordes from deckchairs

[Selaurant]

Martin, thanks for your useful comments.

I am interested in this question (how does v2 play) because I have several ancient armies that I have not played with for some time. It is not because I have switched to a rival set of ancient rules (not interested in Dbmm). I now mainly play FOGR or FOW instead. In my opinion both of those games play better than FOG Ancients. I was in the camp that wanted FOGA to evolve to be more like FOGR, though that appears not to have happened.

As a constructive suggestion, why dont the FOG.A V2 rules writers do what companies like Battlefront do when they release their new rules. They write web articles to explain the changes, then play out some demo battles and post them on their website with photos. It helps a lot to understand the game. It also gives people confidence in buying it. I undertand the technical term for this behaviour is called "marketing" or "product demonstration". Try it. Sales might improve. You just ne a few hours work and a digital camera.

Sorry for the sarcasm but at this point I won't touch FOG V2 unless I know what I am getting. There are to many other good games out there that I know play well, and my time is finite.

[Martin0112]

What I can say it's a little bit quicker to play, less manouvers, as the armies are bloser to each other.
So this is definitelly a difference (and not a bad one).
I think that there is a slight improvement for real elephant armies, and a small disadvantage for pre skirmisher armies, but they are still playable.
Also protected cavalry may now become of interest from what I saw.
And the swarm armies will suffer, as they have a maximum if 16 attrition points in an 800 points game.

Due to the change from 1HP3B to 1HP2B, bigger battle groups may also be the 'winners' of these changes.

[hazelbark]

The other potential significant change is the rules clearly state that 800 points on a 5x3 table is fine.

This is a good variety and may change the army compositions.

[philqw78]

The other potential significant change is the rules clearly state that 800 points on a 5x3 table is fine.

This is a good variety and may change the army compositions.

Starting 6 inches apart should speed the game up.

[hannibal]

I played my first v2 tournament at the weekend - Burton Doubles. I'd only played 2 games of V2 prior to this. Have to say my conclusion is that the changes made in V2 are a credit to the authors. They have resisted the temptation to make wholesale changes, but all the small tweaks that have been made seem to me to have improved the balance of the game. Really like the changes to the terrain rules, the new 3MU shooting limit for LH/LF has toned down skirmishers just enough, and the rule changes relating to movement make undrilled troops a viable option, as are elephants now. So my vote is that V2 is an excellent set of amendments. Maybe only 1 thing I can think of that maybe is a missed opportunity - I would have liked to see LF movement reduced to 6MU - so that there is an outside chance of them being caught by Cav (on a 6:1), but I believe this idea was mooted and obviously discarded so maybe took things a little too far.

[Robert241167]

Hi Marc

I assume you mean LH to 6 MU.

And don't mention our LH this weekend.

Rob

[Polkovnik]

I would have liked to see LF (edit - meaning LH) movement reduced to 6MU - so that there is an outside chance of them being caught by Cav (on a 6:1).

Cavalry can catch LH with movement rates as is, and not only on a 6:1 (assuming within 1 MU to start with).

[Robert241167]

I guess Marc meant on a 6:1 if LH come within the limit for shooting which is just inside 3 MU.

Rob

[hannibal]

Yes Rob, that's what I meant. The same way that MF can now catch LF on a 6:1 if they go withun 3MU to shoot