Suggested amendments

[alasdair2204]

I suppose success is hard to judge, but renaissance has always been my period for years and as far as competitions went there were hardly any or with rules I didn't like (DBR), FOG R seems to have solved that problem and bought out lots of players in what has historically a small period and small group of people playing regular competitions. In the UK there are 1-2 competitions a month at least, I'll be at a FOG R one day event with 25+ players on Sunday and these numbers are fairly standard. Like you I hate tinkering and have mentioned it on the forum before but so far the errata seems well thought out and deals effectively with issues and their does not tend to be enough to need to change your rule book (I have written in no changes in my rule book). To be fair I think the only issue left to look at is artillery but I wouldn't take my word for it as I am known for having no knowledge of what you do with foot, it tends to need to be on a horse or I don't understand it. So far I don't think the errata has affected the game adversely or majorly but has just dealt quietly with some issues that have come up and like you I hope that nothing major changes (Knowing Richard and Nik I am quite confident that it wont. Heres to the continued success of an excellent rule set

Cheers

Alasdair

By the way the Rajputs are on the way to Clevdon

[Vespasian28]

it tends to need to be on a horse or I don't understand it.

I am beginning to think you were a centaur in a previous life. Do you have a craving for oats at breakfast following a night on your straw filled duvet?

[timmy1]

Alasdair, please do not reply...

We REALLY don't need to hear about your oats...

[quackstheking]

Very well put Alasdair.

I am also an unashamedly Renaissaince period player (albeit not as good at FOGR as Alasdair) and I had given up on the period after WRG Gush in the mid 90's. I tinkered with DBR and POWR (including lots of rebasing) , but never really enjoyed those rules or, more importantly, thought they represented accurately Renaissance warfare.

Having played my 1st FOGR competition in Jan 2011 at Godendingdandag (as described by the Madaxeman) - I was hooked. FOGR combined a great game, sufficient "rub of the green" (to be both fair and frustrating!) and a fantastic spectacle that reflected all the old Renaissance woodcuts, to get me wanting to play more!

Renaissance has always been a "minor interest" period, very much behind the biggies of Ancients and Napoleonocs. When I ran Roll Call back in the 90's we had 5x more Ancients players to Renaissance - that is not the case now. Yes Ancients will always be the major period in 15mm (being represented by FOG, DBMM) but Renaissance, and FOGR specifically, has closed the gap and in terms of it's period interest really has set the world on fire!!!

I am happy with the "minor" tweaks on Fogr (which is all we have seen to date) but like Alasdair I neither want, nor feel we will get, major changes deserving of a required rules revision.

We have a great game - let's enjoy it. The one day UK Southern league has attracted c.26 players in each of the 1st 3 rounds so it's a thriving game (even with Alasdairs dominance!).

Still the Rajputs will be shredded by the Hawaiians this weekend (given good dice, good terrain and good match-ups (unlikely on the Hawaiian part!))

Long live FOGR!!!

Don

[Vespasian28]

I know this doesn't really prove anything considering FOGAM was the first FOG set and it has gone into a V2 so when we came to FOGR a lot of the mechanics were now familiar. But I was struck by how many fewer rules questions have been generated on the forum about FOGR compared to FOGAM.

Does that say anything about how good the rules are?

[quackstheking]

FOGR players have a better set of rules and they don't enjoy cheese!!!

In probably 15 comps, the least occupied person is the umpire!

Don

[Simpleton]

FOGR players have a better set of rules and they don't enjoy cheese!!!

In probably 15 comps, the least occupied person is the umpire!

Don

I agree, until the end and you have to figure out points, that's when things get crazy.

[Schnockel]

I had two suggestions for amendments...

1. Interpenetration-any troops may move through the stands of a BG providing artillery rear support. No troops may end their move in the same area occupied by the supporting BG.

This assumes the rule stating that "for all intents" the supporting BG is really occupying the location of the artillery. Also, if a standard pike and shot unit were supporting a 2-stand artillery unit, then it would NOT be permissible to pass through the stands not directly supporting the artillery.

2. The death roll +1 modifier be altered to include ALL artillery.

The reason is that the rule encourages players to only purchase two-stand batteries. If you buy a three or four stand battery, you lose the +1 modifier. That loss of modifier seems inconsistent to me.

Dave Sanders

[madaxeman]

I had two suggestions for amendments...

1. Interpenetration-any troops may move through the stands of a BG providing artillery rear support. No troops may end their move in the same area occupied by the supporting BG.

This assumes the rule stating that "for all intents" the supporting BG is really occupying the location of the artillery. Also, if a standard pike and shot unit were supporting a 2-stand artillery unit, then it would NOT be permissible to pass through the stands not directly supporting the artillery.

2. The death roll +1 modifier be altered to include ALL artillery.

The reason is that the rule encourages players to only purchase two-stand batteries. If you buy a three or four stand battery, you lose the +1 modifier. That loss of modifier seems inconsistent to me.

Dave Sanders

Currently only foot can provide rear support to artillery, so this would only allow other foot groups to do a 2-unit interpenetration and exceed their move by even more than they can at the moment by inter penetrating artillery alone...

[Schnockel]

That's not the intent, though your point is a good one. My suggestion was not clearly worded. The intent is to allow friendly troops to pass thru the stands placed directly behind the artillery. Technically they aren't really there...they are occupying the space of the artillery stands. So allowing movement thru that area where the stands are placed for practical purposes seems justified.

Gotta say, too....LOVE your AAR'S. Entertaining and educational, all at once.

[Sarmaticus]

Just a thought re artillery picking on mounted:
Mounted troops could reduce their vulnerability to roundshot by moving: whether to get somewhere or just to throw off the gunner's aim or exploit minor dips and rises of the ground. The one case I know of mounted being slaughtered by cannons, Ravenna, saw the mounted penned and enfiladed and compelled them to move.
In FOGR terms perhaps +1 or +2 to the death roll of mounted v long range artillery - perhaps with the proviso that they are separated by a base width from other battlegroups bar commanded shot and artillery?

[MatteoPasi]

A question:
if the problem are horse+artillery+dragoon HAD armies we can just cange the number of hits needed in order to check morale.
If instead of 1 on 3 we change to 1 on 4 every unit in the HAD will test everitime hitted, this will reduce their morale where standard Shoot&Pike still need 2 hits (also the swedish brigate will test with 2 hots like Others s&P, himo this is a good new)
Matteo

[madaxeman]

A question:
if the problem are horse+artillery+dragoon HAD armies we can just cange the number of hits needed in order to check morale.
If instead of 1 on 3 we change to 1 on 4 every unit in the HAD will test everitime hitted, this will reduce their morale where standard Shoot&Pike still need 2 hits (also the swedish brigate will test with 2 hots like Others s&P, himo this is a good new)
Matteo

Increasing the effectiveness or artillery and Dragoons is probably not the best way to discourage near-all mounted armies from bringing historically unlikely large heavy artillery parks along with them....

[timmy1]

Not quite worked out the exact wording but as Bayonet armed MF are operating as Pike surrogates, they should be treated as HF for the purposes of movement and disorganisation. This combined with the restrictions on the ratio of artillery to foot in mounted armies might be enough.

[rbodleyscott]

Not quite worked out the exact wording but as Bayonet armed MF are operating as Pike surrogates, they should be treated as HF for the purposes of movement and disorganisation.

Or not.

[MatteoPasi]

A question:
if the problem are horse+artillery+dragoon HAD armies we can just cange the number of hits needed in order to check morale.
If instead of 1 on 3 we change to 1 on 4 every unit in the HAD will test everitime hitted, this will reduce their morale where standard Shoot&Pike still need 2 hits (also the swedish brigate will test with 2 hots like Others s&P, himo this is a good new)
Matteo

Increasing the effectiveness or artillery and Dragoons is probably not the best way to discourage near-all mounted armies from bringing historically unlikely large heavy artillery parks along with them....

I can't agree.
Now 4 Dr facing a standard S&P roll 4 dice each.
If only 1 hit no one will test, with 1 on 4 only dragoon will test.
With 2+ hit nothing change: both will check morale

About artillery: what about giving player a -1 to iniziative as artillery will slow the army ? or to force players to deploy atrillery BEFORE the army (in the fortification phase) ?

[gibby]

Actually its not a bad idea if combined with allowing Average Horse in 6 packs as the side effect of 1 in 4 would also mean most cav/horse units testing on 1 hit.

cheers
Jim

[Sarmaticus]

or to force players to deploy atrillery BEFORE the army (in the fortification phase) ?

The supposed problem with that being the opponent will adopt an eccentric deployment to avoid the guns. In reality the army could have manoeuvred before the battle, the enemy responded and so on. Of course, historically armies deployed according to plans drawn up well in advance. If artillery is more effective versus foot than horse then deploying it last should work fine.

[madaxeman]

I can't agree.
Now 4 Dr facing a standard S&P roll 4 dice each.
If only 1 hit no one will test, with 1 on 4 only dragoon will test.
With 2+ hit nothing change: both will check morale ?

It is not them being shot, it is them shooting that will change. This would make Dragoons into incredibly effective shooters against enemy Horse, able to shoot 6",operate in the flank, evade, move as fast as Horse and cause a test almost every single time they shoot (at a unit of 4).

At the moment they are effective in combination with Artillery, if you changed to 1 per 4 they would be almost as effective without it...

[madaxeman]

Actually its not a bad idea if combined with allowing Average Horse in 6 packs as the side effect of 1 in 4 would also mean most cav/horse units testing on 1 hit.
cheers
Jim

It would turn the game into FoGAM, where everything can be decided by relentless low-level skirmisher shooting intended to cause multiple cohesion tests..