Interpenetrating in an evade...

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

Post Reply
ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by ChrisTofalos » Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:56 pm

Image

The above situation took place during a club game. The LF (slingers) started in the top white box next to the LF (jav/lt spear). They were charged by the LH (shown in their final position after their charge).

We had three possible final outcome positions for the slingers:

(1) They pass through both pike BGs immediately to their rear and then pass through the other pike BG, just coming into the picture at the bottom.

(2) They pass through both pike BGs immediately to their rear but are not allowed to interpenetrate the third BG of pikes and are destroyed.

(3) They pass through both pike BGs immediately to their rear, then drop back two bases to avoid the third BG, which they are not allowed to interpenetrate.

Which is correct, please?

petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3040
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by petedalby » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:35 pm

Depending upon what is behind the new BG with the yellow shields - 1.

My rationale:

Page 72 tells us that an evading BG is allowed to interpenetrate friends if allowed to do so. Shifting and dropping bases is only permitted to get past things it cannot interpenetrate.

So flick to Page 49. The last bullet - the evaders appear to have insufficient move to pass fully through the yellow shield BG - unless any of the following apply:

Page 50 - second bullet. It is LF. It is evading so the same or opposite direction issue does not apply. It has reached part of the BG. It can therefore pass completely through if there is room beyond. Which your picture does not show. But if there is room it goes through.

If it cannot go through the yellow shields because there is insufficient room then I think you shift the LF / white box to the right in your picture. Dropping back bases comes second to shifting.

But that is just my view. Hope it helps.
Pete

paullongmore
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:12 pm

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by paullongmore » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:15 am

Just to clarify, it wasn't my game but I was there.
The situation was that the evade move of the LF reached the red and blue pike block (it did not reach the yellow)
Therefore the LF are placed beyond the red and blue BG. Being destroyed if they cannot fit.
As shown in the photo the yellow BG stops them being placed directly behind the red and blue BG.
The point of discussion was whether the LF get to slide or drop a base to avoid the yellow BG. A slide didn't help as this was blocked by another BG.
Therefore the point of discussion became do the LF get to drop a base to avoid the yellow BG.

petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3040
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by petedalby » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:58 am

Thanks for the additional info Paul.
Therefore the point of discussion became do the LF get to drop a base to avoid the yellow BG.
I believe so - yes.
Pete

ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by ChrisTofalos » Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:32 am

Many thanks, Pete and apologies - I mistakenly drew the second box in line with rear of the red block (its position after evading through it)...

petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3040
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by petedalby » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:22 pm

Not a problem. Just to finish exploring options....

Had the LF not had room beyond they would not have been destroyed. Instead they would not interpenetrate anyone - Page 49 - last bullet - final sentence - they cannot pass through at all. And are therefore likely to be caught in the rear by the LH.
Pete

ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by ChrisTofalos » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:17 pm

I spotted the bit about them not passing through and being caught.

As it happens, and for various reasons, we rolled a dice and they were destroyed. :-(

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3792
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by dave_r » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:17 pm

petedalby wrote:Not a problem. Just to finish exploring options....

Had the LF not had room beyond they would not have been destroyed. Instead they would not interpenetrate anyone - Page 49 - last bullet - final sentence - they cannot pass through at all. And are therefore likely to be caught in the rear by the LH.
We covered this in the clarifications :). On page 49 it states what troops can interpenetrate. If they can't, then they must burst through - in which case pg 51 states "Move the evading or routing battle group the full extent of its move. If its move does not completely clear all friends, it is placed beyond any battle group(s) it is currently bursting through if there is room for it beyond, otherwise it is destroyed and removed from the table."

Unfortunately, page 72 directly contradicts this* When it states "Battle groups that cannot complete an evade move by any of the above means move as far as they can, and are likely to be caught".

The clarifications confirm the battle group is destroyed.


* Terry's fault
Evaluator of Supremacy

ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by ChrisTofalos » Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:04 am

The clarifications confirm the battle group is destroyed.
Can't agree with you at all on this one, Dave. You can't ignore what's actually written in the rules to justify what you're claiming.

In the section on evade moves (P.72) the 4th sub-bullet point clearly states you can both shift a base AND drop back bases when meeting an obstruction. That would allow the BG to avoid the yellow shield BG at the bottom of the picture.

The situation is further complicated by the final position of the chargers. Initially, their charge direction had been given as wheeling parallel to the front of the LF (to force these to evade directly to their rear). If you look at the final position of the chargers you will see it is anything but parallel to the chargers. Had the evaders been allowed to evade in the ACTUAL direction of the charge they would probably have missed the yellow shields completely.

I love competitive wargaming but, personally, am getting fed up of some of the 'interpretations' I've heard. I'm years behind most players I meet in terms of FoG playing experience. Something new seems to crop up almost every game I play and, generally, I bow to my opponents better knowledge of the game. Unfortunately, there have been countless occasions when, on checking the actual rules after a game, I find the wool has been somewhat pulled over my eyes (either by accident or design). I don't mind losing (don't like it but, hopefully, learn a lesson from it) but I'm just not into this win at all costs thing. It's got to the stage where I'm considering giving up FoG altogether and am looking at MeG, where I might only be a year or so behind everyone else...

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8717
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by philqw78 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:58 pm

I think Dave is going on about if they couldn't fit, which they could as like you said the can shift and drop bases
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3040
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by petedalby » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:38 am

Unfortunately, there have been countless occasions when, on checking the actual rules after a game, I find the wool has been somewhat pulled over my eyes
Sadly we've all been there Chris - there is no substitute for checking the rules.

You have some very good players at MAWs but they are not as familiar with the rules as they should be. To my eternal shame I was playing a MAWs player who confidently assured me that my evading LH could not shift to avoid leaving the side table edge. Another MAWs player assured me that my opponent was correct. Exit LH with Ally General attached - disaster for the rest of the Allied BGs. And of course on checking the rules after the game I was robbed.

But I have moved on - honest. :wink:
Pete

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3792
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by dave_r » Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:12 pm

petedalby wrote:
Unfortunately, there have been countless occasions when, on checking the actual rules after a game, I find the wool has been somewhat pulled over my eyes
Sadly we've all been there Chris - there is no substitute for checking the rules.

You have some very good players at MAWs but they are not as familiar with the rules as they should be. To my eternal shame I was playing a MAWs player who confidently assured me that my evading LH could not shift to avoid leaving the side table edge. Another MAWs player assured me that my opponent was correct. Exit LH with Ally General attached - disaster for the rest of the Allied BGs. And of course on checking the rules after the game I was robbed.

But I have moved on - honest. :wink:
That is a particularly difficult case as it makes a difference as to whether it is an evade or an initial rout. Page 107 states you aren't allowed to shift to avoid leaving the table, but page 72 states you can.

It's not a huge surprise that upon occasion this is dealt with incorrectly.
Evaluator of Supremacy

ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by ChrisTofalos » Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:51 am

My sympathies, Pete. When an experienced opponent claims something (such as evading LH not being allowed to shift) he - presumably - knows he is right because he has read it in the rules. When it turns out not to be the case it's up to comp organisers to right wrongs, no matter how inconvenient this may be. Unfortunately, genuine justice in wargaming is sometimes as difficult to achieve as it is in the real world.

Having to check the rules is a pain and it's not always possible to find the answer when it's buried in a couple of hundred pages. It's also time consuming (or wasting) and introduces an element of unpleasantness that shouldn't be there. If you claim something should happen - particularly when it's going to have a major effect on the result - you should be able to open the book at the appropriate page to prove your point. And if you can't then you'll have to forget about it.

From the early 70s onwards, and for more than a dozen years, I was a regular competitor in the old Nationals (in those days my brain used to function more efficiently and I had a decent success record). However, the last year I entered I saw something happen on a table (it wasn't even in the period I had entered) that was so patently wrong I had to bring it to the attention of the organisers; it was gamesmanship in the extreme. Suffice to say, they weren't interested at all. There was a major flaw in the rules but they weren't even slightly bothered about seeing the right thing done. Wargaming is my idea of fun (well, one of them!) but when that sort of thing is allowed and winning at all costs gets official approval, it ceases to be. I never entered the Nationals again.
But I have moved on - honest. :wink:
I think I'm moving on, too- to MeG! :-(

petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3040
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by petedalby » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:43 am

I think I'm moving on, too- to MeG! :-(
Good luck with that - although I'm not sure you will find it significantly different in terms of rules / selective memory etc.

I've just had a very pleasant 4 game competition in Winchester - all games played in the right spirit. The rules are pretty clear 99% of the time so I'm sticking with FoG for now.
Pete

ChrisTofalos
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by ChrisTofalos » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:31 am

- all games played in the right spirit.
That's it in a nutshell, Pete. On reflection, rules have little to do with it. It's player attitude that makes a game enjoyable - or not.

Well, I had my baptism of fire with MeG last night. Very interesting but the set appears to be more complex than FoG and I'm not sure a game with the same number of bases is going to be any quicker to play at all. There were little markers all over the place; it just looked messy.

Although many of the proposed amendments for V3 went a bit too far and would significantly alter the balance of the game, there were some excellent ideas put forward. Roll on V 2.1 (?) - hint, hint!

Incidentally, I've tried to PM you, Pete, but the message appears to be still in my Outbox. Have you received anything?

Chris

AlanCutner
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by AlanCutner » Thu Mar 02, 2017 3:39 pm

Chris, the other major set around at the moment is Art de la Guerre. Completely different to FoG and MeG and no idea if your cup of tea.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8717
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by philqw78 » Thu Mar 02, 2017 8:35 pm

Or a bit like both fog and meg
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3040
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by petedalby » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:24 pm

It's player attitude that makes a game enjoyable - or not.
Spot on Chris. And I think that we are very fortunate that most people still playing FoG are exactly the kind of people that you would wish to play.
Have you received anything?
Message received and replied.

It will be interesting to see what the final version of V3 looks like - I wish I knew.... :oops: :cry:
Post by philqw78 » 02 Mar 2017 20:35

Or a bit like both fog and meg
Yes. There is very little new under the sun. ADLG appears to be a development of DBM with elements of FoG thrown in. MeG owes a lot to FoG which is unsurprising since they share the same author.
Pete

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2970
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by madaxeman » Sat Mar 04, 2017 9:45 am

Looking specifically at rules queries, over the past few months;

- the FoGAM forum seems to generate between 4-7 queries, almost all of which are resolved within 1 or 2 posts. Very broadly generalising, they are either where newish players can't find something in the rules, or where the long-established players are discussing a very unusual and complex situation that's come up in a game - both of which I guess are understandable, especially in a ruleset that has undoubtedly been very thoroughly playtested, but which also runs to quite so many pages. The FAQ is very stable, and is effectively now owned by the community

- ADLG runs to about a dozen queries per month (in the English language section of it's forum), and they are mostly resolved in between 1-6 posts. Again broadly generalising they tend to be new players asking some variation of "I used to be able to do this in DBM/FoG/etc, is it the same in ADLG?", to which the usual answer is along the lines of "not really, please RTFM". There are also a number of longer threads and queries, often where something obscure has come up, or more occasionally where subtleties in the French-English translation haven't worked quite right. The gnarly ones of these get referred to the author for inclusion in the next edition of the FAQ, which is updated every 3-4 months.

- MeG is routinely running to 20+ queries each month, some resolved quickly, some turning into multi-page debates. They are a combination of "why do the rules appear to work like this, this isn't how I think this interaction should work / this appears to unbalance the game?" debates, queries on things which appear to be either unclear, missed out or inconsistent in the rules & QRS, and a fair bit of "how does this work?" which again usually ends in "RTFM" - all what you might expect with a new ruleset with limited play time to date compared to FoG and ADLG. The author tends to have the final say, with some things going on to be be corrected in the rules or FAQ in real-time, some list updates being made, and others put on a back-burner for a planned subsequent update. If bahdahbum wasn't on the MeG forum there would also be far fewer queries there... and presumably more here.
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3006
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Interpenetrating in an evade...

Post by grahambriggs » Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:51 am

madaxeman wrote:Looking specifically at rules queries, over the past few months;

- the FoGAM forum seems to generate between 4-7 queries, almost all of which are resolved within 1 or 2 posts. Very broadly generalising, they are either where newish players can't find something in the rules, or where the long-established players are discussing a very unusual and complex situation that's come up in a game - both of which I guess are understandable, especially in a ruleset that has undoubtedly been very thoroughly playtested, but which also runs to quite so many pages. The FAQ is very stable, and is effectively now owned by the community

- ADLG runs to about a dozen queries per month (in the English language section of it's forum), and they are mostly resolved in between 1-6 posts. Again broadly generalising they tend to be new players asking some variation of "I used to be able to do this in DBM/FoG/etc, is it the same in ADLG?", to which the usual answer is along the lines of "not really, please RTFM". There are also a number of longer threads and queries, often where something obscure has come up, or more occasionally where subtleties in the French-English translation haven't worked quite right. The gnarly ones of these get referred to the author for inclusion in the next edition of the FAQ, which is updated every 3-4 months.

- MeG is routinely running to 20+ queries each month, some resolved quickly, some turning into multi-page debates. They are a combination of "why do the rules appear to work like this, this isn't how I think this interaction should work / this appears to unbalance the game?" debates, queries on things which appear to be either unclear, missed out or inconsistent in the rules & QRS, and a fair bit of "how does this work?" which again usually ends in "RTFM" - all what you might expect with a new ruleset with limited play time to date compared to FoG and ADLG. The author tends to have the final say, with some things going on to be be corrected in the rules or FAQ in real-time, some list updates being made, and others put on a back-burner for a planned subsequent update. If bahdahbum wasn't on the MeG forum there would also be far fewer queries there... and presumably more here.
I think FOG at least, and to some extent perhaps ADLG, benefit from not being the first version. For example, the index in v1 FOG was terrible but the v2 index is good. The issues with FOG tend to fall into two camps:

- most commonly, unusual situations where you have to refer to several sections of the rules and the wording is obscure. All rules tend to get these but FOG doesn't help itself. e.g. for a unit's first rout move encountering obstructions you end up looking at three different sections.

- contradictions in the rules. These are rare, and essentially need someone to say which section to use.

I'm sure you know Tim that there's a re-write of FOGAM to v3 rules going on (looks like the book will come out this summer), plus boiling down the absurd number of army list books into three books. This will allow for changes to the points cost of troops, which didn't happen in the V2 rewrite. Trying to fix some of the problems which have put people off of the rules. But also, I've suggested to Terry that he should take the opportunity to bake in the BHGS umpire clarifications to reduce the level of queries.

I have to say in the process of working up FOG v3, there have been a lot of comments on how the interactions work, whether things would be unbalanced or not, as you observe for MeG. Often they are contradictory. Quite often though, it's difficult to understand why people have those views, or it might be that it's a wargames myth.

As with any new rule sets or versions, the acid test for FOG, ADLG, MeG will be whether it's an enjoyable enough game despite any issues to maintain a viable number of players. DBM in my opinion was the best for that, despite impenetrable writing and numerous editions it had a very long shelf life.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”