Suggested amendments

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Renaissance Wars.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by hazelbark » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:31 pm

Well I haven't run Swedes yet, so I was happy I was shooting down their shot. I prefer to shoot the Swedes in the flank so the nearest base was a shot base.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22056
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:33 pm

kevinj wrote:
I would not prohibit commanded shot from capturing guns
I may have missed it but Errata V1.0.9 doesn't seem to include any changes to capturing guns. Is this under consideration for the next errata?
Yes. But feel free to post on the new thread to remind me.

Amra
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:59 pm

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by Amra » Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:26 pm

I so wish this thread didn't exist .

If we have learned anything from DBM 3.0 003 etc it's that the way to kill rules is to micro fiddle with them .

The recent mess in the release of FoG A/M ver 2 shows the damage that happens to a brand that changes .

Why do this ? The rules aren't perfect ( does that even exist ?) but they work . Please stop tinkering .

If you're yearning to do more with the system the answer is simple .

Write a book of scenarios and campaign rules .

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22056
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by rbodleyscott » Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:25 am

I am not a tinkerer. DBMM only exist because I declined to take part in any further tinkering with DBMS. However, there are a few niggling issues in FOGR which mar an otherwise surprisingly bulletproof system. There aren't many of these left, so don't expect many more amendments masquerading as errata. Certainly there is no intention to produce a 2nd edition - perhaps ever - the game is good enough not to need one. FOGAM had certain issues that were driving some players away, so really needed an overhaul. FOGR doesn't.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by hazelbark » Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:22 pm

Amra wrote:
The recent mess in the release of FoG A/M ver 2 shows the damage that happens to a brand that changes .
That was largely to do with the several misfires not occurring here. A Beta-process that was not ideal, a release of a app product not timed with a paper product.

It was 5 years for Ancients to be updated. I know a boat load of people who were enjoying other rules.

What RBS is doing here is very much fixes to narrow bits. He has a very strong tendency to discount change for change sake. So I would be less worried here.

johngl
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by johngl » Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:46 pm

bahdahbum wrote:
But OK nobody said the world is a fair but I will always wonder : how many times did an early 30 years war swedish army win a tournament or did they have so many outright victories as to make them the supper army some people would like you to believe !
I saw Early TYW Swedes win at Arquebusier in December, and I notice that they also won at Cancon. Doesn't prove they're a "super-army", of course, but they can't be bad.

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by timmy1 » Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:35 pm

They weren't...

Not so sure now...

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

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by ravenflight » Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 am

timmy1 wrote:They weren't...

Not so sure now...
Interestingly I pointed the new eratta to the CanCon organiser and Richard Stubbs and said 'of course it wouldn't be fair to bring them in NOW' (on the last day).

I then overheard Richard saying that he'd FORGOTTEN to count the Swedish brigades as armoured... so, NO, he won the last game WITH the new errata.

Amra
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:59 pm

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by Amra » Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:18 am

I have taken some time to consider your points . Sorry , I just don't agree .

I use all 3 FoG rule sets . I am President of the largest historical gaming club in Australia .I play tournaments in FoG A/M and FoG R . I mention that to show I support the rules and activly promote them to newcomers .

What benifit is there from changing rules ad hoc ? If the rules have a problem that some don't like they can use in-house modifications .

Does anyone not buy the rules because of the need for changes ? I would say no . They certainly don't buy the rules when the book isn't the complete rules . ( I ran a beginner thru FoG R the other night , but lost him when I explained he had to "update" his expensive rule book ) .

Despite being , IMHO , the best of the FoG set, FoG R is not setting the world on fire . Changes to the rules ( where you must be aware of a web site to get the changes ) will not increase sales . A book of scenarios and campaign systems , or any other new content , might .

The history of our hobby shows us that a trickle of 'versions" splinters existing players and eventually fatally weakens the popularity of the rules .

I feel that FoG R delivers such a good game , it deserves to be played more widely . In my opinion incremental changes to the written rules will not allow that to happen .

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by kevinj » Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:46 am

What benifit is there from changing rules ad hoc ?
Rules are not being changed ad hoc. We have recently received an updated errata. The last one came out about a year ago. Changes are not being made without due consideration.
If the rules have a problem that some don't like they can use in-house modifications .
The history of our hobby shows us that a trickle of 'versions" splinters existing player
I'm not sure how it was in Australia, but in the UK "in-house modifications" were a major problem with earlier rule sets that were not supported in this way. House ruling stuff is fine for non-tournament games, but for tournaments it's really helpful if everyone is playing to a consistent set of rules and they know that any changes have been released by the authors and not made up by the organiser. This happened with many previous sets of rules (I'm thinking specifically WRG 6th and 7th but it happened elsewhere too) and resulted in players having to learn a different set of amendments/rule changes (disguised as "Clarifications") for each tournament. I think that DBM lasted as long as it did because it was regularly updated. Conversely, DBR was not updated regularly enough and had lost a large number of its players vhen V2 finally came out.
Does anyone not buy the rules because of the need for changes ?
Probably not, but they might lose interest in the game if it is not supported. In my opinion, gamey loopholes that are not closed will do far more damage to the game.
Despite being , IMHO , the best of the FoG set, FoG R is not setting the world on fire
Here I agree with you. But the reality is that the period is one that has always had limited appeal relative to the Ancient, Medieval, Napoleonic or WW2 periods. We've seen some crossover from Fog AM (due principally to frustration with that set not being updated quickly enough) but mostly people want to play the periods that they like/have always played.

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

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by ravenflight » Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:25 pm

kevinj wrote:We've seen some crossover from Fog AM (due principally to frustration with that set not being updated quickly enough) but mostly people want to play the periods that they like/have always played.
Most definitely. I'm still playing 'FoG' ONLY because of FoG:R. I haven't played a FoG:AM since mid-year. I'm not opposed to playing FoG:AM now, but I was for a while, and even with my apathy disappearing I'm STILL mostly interested with FoG:R to the point where you COULD call me an exclusive Renaissance Man.

I'm tinkering with ideas for FoG:AM, but think I'll end up expanding my Renaissance armies.

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2929
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by madaxeman » Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:51 pm

Amra wrote:The history of our hobby shows us that a trickle of 'versions" splinters existing players and eventually fatally weakens the popularity of the rules.
My experience has been precisely the opposite of this.

All rulesets have a natural shelf-life, and at some point in time they will all fade away and die - but in all the periods I play I can see that those rules that have active support from the publishers, and which see regular revisions and updates remain popular for longer than those which are unsupported and static.

Take it to extremes and the most commercially succesful gaming company (with, whatever we may think of them personally, the most widely played rulesets) on the planet has a business model that appears to be entirely dependant on a continual combination of incremental and step-change rule revisions.

The only "old" ruleset I can think of which I would still describe as "popular" without having undergone any changes would be Fire & Fury - which survives and is still played without even having been in print for more than a decade. But that's the exception, not the rule.
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by hazelbark » Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:52 pm

madaxeman wrote: My experience has been precisely the opposite of this.

The only "old" ruleset I can think of which I would still describe as "popular" without having undergone any changes would be Fire & Fury - which survives and is still played without even having been in print for more than a decade. But that's the exception, not the rule.
All great points.

Further, F&F has no new competition in its historical niche (ACW) and is growing out into other time periods. It is an easy large scale game. It is very hard to fight an entire ACW battle in the time most gamers have to play a game, but those rules do it.

Amra
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:59 pm

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by Amra » Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:24 pm

First let me say again how much I like the rules and you are all making good points .

However, I'm not arguing for no ' active support from publishers " but rather what is the nature of that support ?

I cant agree that DBM died because of it's shelf life . I was in Rome in 2004 , the comp was huge . Fast forward 2 years and it had died in numbers . Why ? If you can't buy the rules , you lose players .

The Australian experience mirrors this also .

To see how to do it you need only look at Flames of War , free mini rules sets provided to old rule set owners etc .

None of you have dealt with my point that new players are put off by an expensive rule set that is incomplete .

I don't advocate no support ( although that is the case in Australia , without clubs like mine teaching the rules FoG would not be played . We are your sales/marketing team . In Victoria where I am and there is a strong club scene the rules thrive in ,say NSW , where there are less clubs they struggle ) .

I'm saying that changes to the rules thru a web site makes some tournament players happy but does nothing for sales and new players .

I guess I'm also saying that if you release a V2 you need to avoid FoG A/M s embarrassing shambles and copy more the smooth positive transition style of FoW

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

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by ravenflight » Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:27 pm

Amra wrote:I ran a beginner thru FoG R the other night , but lost him when I explained he had to "update" his expensive rule book.
I just had a thought on this.

It is clear that you are opposed to the 'tinkering' Amra, and so is it any wonder that when you spoke to the beginner your tone, affect and overall opinion of the 'update' would have come through so that he had limited choice but to become 'lost'?

Amra
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:59 pm

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by Amra » Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:05 am

LOL , no fair enough thought but no .

I really like the FoG system. I play in Worlds and National comps in FoG A/M and FoG R . I play quite a bit of FoG N .

As I said I ( and others like me in the Clubs ) , am the sales/marketing team for the rules . I want club members playing a good system and enjoying lots of good gaming with different players .

I see this discussion as an in-house sales meeting , where we are being honest about what is an issue for new buyers and a gaming system where the published rules aren't the complete rules has problems IMHO

NickW
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:27 am

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by NickW » Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:33 am

I'm a well known tinkerer, but I have a lot of sympathy toward the view that we should not be making non-critical changes. It seems to be overly focussed on the entrenched tournament set. I think FoGR is the best of the FoG set and have had a great time playing them, and don't see any obvious problems with them as they are.

One of the interesting things I noticed about the last tournament was the number of people coming up to ask about the rules set. People have been looking for a good renaissance set for ages and it looks great (especially with an ET on table). It was easy to tell them that all rules were contained in a single impressive hardback. I agree that this was one (of many IMO) of the failings of DBM in the end - an inability to buy the complete rules set.

It makes sense to consider some of the objectives of FoG. It achieves those of being a fun and reasonably historically accurate rules set as is. Does it also have an objective of attracting new players? If so, these changes are unlikely to aid that, and may hinder it.

Simpleton
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by Simpleton » Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:48 am

I have run the FOGR tournaments at the Cold Wars and Fall-In conventions here in the USA, and have helped push the FOGR events at Historicon (can't afford to go to three cons anymore). Previously I ran the DBR events, before that I ran the DBM Doubles, and before that I ran tournaments using Tercio and before that Gush 2nd Ed. I am a social gamer, I have run all these tournaments and played in other people tourneys and only won one of them. What keeps me coming back is the fun of seeing old friends (some of whom are foes!) and really enjoying the battles. What I look for is this: Can I finish a satisfying game in around 3 hours, there is more skill than luck (although we can't eradicate dice), rules questions are rare or players can find the answers themselves (hooray!), the tabletop looks like a battle, games attract positive feedback from passersby, and many armies are viable, not just a few.

That is why I really enjoy FOGR, so far it is doing better than DBR or old Gush. Tercio was very realistic, but games were long, Newbury was even longer so we didn't even try. However, even though I can get about 10-12 players to show up, after 2 rounds people are burning out. In the USA typically people show up on Friday, play three rounds and then move on to something else the next day. When we tried running one game Friday and two on Saturday (or vice versa) it failed. This makes bringing in younger players tough.

This has been a long run up to say what about something more than an errata and less than a new update to create a DBR condensed style game for the Renaissance to then move people up to the full rules after they're hooked. The games should be playable on a 2x2 board for 15mm and 3x3 for 25mm. Games should be over in 60-90 minutes. Minimum terrain or preset terrain. One general (unless you have an Ally). I leave to others to create this, but if we are to grow the hobby here we need something to compete with electronics and short attention spans. That was my two cents.

PS- Allow HF Hvy Wpn to form Keils :D

Vespasian28
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:04 pm

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by Vespasian28 » Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:13 am

Despite being , IMHO , the best of the FoG set, FoG R is not setting the world on fire
Totally agree that FOGR is the best set yet partly because a lot was learned from FOGAM. And designers find out things you missed once the great unwashed get to play, hence the amendments which I think are a good thing.

I'm not sure how you define a ruleset that sets the world on fire. All I know is that my old ECW and Italian Wars armies get frequent runouts after lying moribund for over twenty years and all sorts of armies that I didn't realise people had at the club are also putting in appearances. That to me says FOGR is a success whether it sets the world on fire or not.

Amra
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:59 pm

Re: Suggested amendments

Post by Amra » Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:41 pm

Sales I guess , attendance at tournaments , articles in mags about it - that sort of thing

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Renaissance Wars : General Discussion”