Small is Beautiful

[Robert241167]

Hi there

Page 12 of FOG rulebook says game ideally designed to be played on 72" by 48".

Page 148 says suggested points for singles tournament game is 800.

And there you have it.

Rob

[ravenflight]

Hi there

Page 12 of FOG rulebook says game ideally designed to be played on 72" by 48".

Page 148 says suggested points for singles tournament game is 800.

And there you have it.

Rob

What you 'have' is what the rules were designed for (and you left out the bit where it says "but smaller or larger spaces can be used"), and what the authors suggest. So, what you 'have' is... nothing.

Nearly every game that has ever been created in the history of man has been 'designed' to be something different to what it morphs into. Otherwise we wouldn't have 17 different codes of 'football'.

[Strategos69]

I have already said that games feel better in smaller tables, specially when the troop density increases. You get less the feeling of playing a skirmish and more a battle (I am thinking about even going for 900 in 5 by 3 so that there are multiple lines). In fact, with smaller tables LH barely can double move and you can have shooting from the first turn, which reduces turns in which nothing happens. I find that it would be good to have certain limits deploying non skirmisher units next to the side edges to allow some manouvering. If not, you can miss that part of the fun, battles can be an all straight ahead advances and there is not an encouragement for historical deployments (hard units can be used to lock one flank). That would give more sense to have ambushes as that would be the sole means to deploy heavy units on the flanks.

As mentioned deployment rules are not carved in stone and written in the Bible. These playtests are quite useful for other people to try alternative ones. I only tried alternative ones when I bought my small mat, but certainly the playtest has showed me that many times the "recommended measurements" sometimes do not correspond with the optimal game.

[philqw78]

What you 'have' is what the rules were designed for (and you left out the bit where it says "but smaller or larger spaces can be used"), and what the authors suggest. So, what you 'have' is... nothing.

Nearly every game that has ever been created in the history of man has been 'designed' to be something different to what it morphs into. Otherwise we wouldn't have 17 different codes of 'football'.

And just 1 game of chess. Chess is more played than any of the individual codes. QED the authors should make their f-ing minds up.

[ravenflight]

And just 1 game of chess. Chess is more played than any of the individual codes. QED the authors should make their f-ing minds up.

Not true. Chess has had modifications to its rules over time, and it's also a VERY old set of rules. I'm sure in the early days it was modified and changed until it became what it is today.

[grahambriggs]

And just 1 game of chess. Chess is more played than any of the individual codes. QED the authors should make their f-ing minds up.

Not true. Chess has had modifications to its rules over time, and it's also a VERY old set of rules. I'm sure in the early days it was modified and changed until it became what it is today.

Standard Chess has many variables; whether a timing clock is used or not - i.e. game length.

There are also many, many variants on the 'standard game' - looking up "Chess Variants" on wikipedia give loads.

The standard game has evolved over time and maintains interest as it has that good "simple to learn difficult to master" thing going on. I'm not sure figure war games get much better than "tricky to learn, difficult to master"

[acl]

So it would be wrong to go uniformly for smaller tables, but I hope we can break free of 6 x 4 800 pts default

May I enquire where the 800pt 6x4 arrangement came from originally? I assume it just wasn't plucked from thin air?

6 x 4 tables worked well under the rule system that was predominant before Fog came in. Tournament organisers inherited them. A reduction in table size for 15mm figures will involve a bit of fiddling round with tape, which organisers will (understandably) want to avoid if 5 x 3 ft and 6 x 4 ft tables are presented as equally good options. Which is why I hope the new edition gives a bit of a pointer on this. Obviously there is no way of compelling people to fight on a particular size of table, and anyway variety is good, but we are unlikely to see much change unless the new edit nudges people in the direction of smaller tables.

I'm less sure where 800 pts came from. In the previous rule set 400 pts was standard and troops cost a little over half what they do in Fog. So it was a round number which people cd switch to, without having to buy many more figures. However, in the previous set many troops could fight reasonably well in a single rank, with the odd second-ranker dotted around to fill in for casualties. Whereas in Fog most types need to be double-ranked. Think this is one of the reason why we get the prob with Benny Hill, surplus space, etc.

Alan

[grahambriggs]

However, in the previous set many troops could fight reasonably well in a single rank, with the odd second-ranker dotted around to fill in for casualties. Whereas in Fog most types need to be double-ranked. Think this is one of the reason why we get the prob with Benny Hill, surplus space, etc.

Alan

I think it's the main one Alan. After all, in the previous set a well designed and played HF army could fill the table and walk forwards just about. Such that some players preferred slightly less points.

I suspect this is one that got away fromt he authors a bit. The fighting depth thing is right at the heart of melee. And you not only need your fighting depth but reserve bases (e.g. 3 wide knights with a reserve at the back, 8 base spears deployed 3 wide). I'm not sure they thought enough about the standard table widths and how much flank space that leaves.

It hasn't helped that the less well armoured troop types are not great value. The Akkadians fill most of the table but out of period can't cope frontally with better armoured troops.

[hazelbark]

So it would be wrong to go uniformly for smaller tables, but I hope we can break free of 6 x 4 800 pts default

May I enquire where the 800pt 6x4 arrangement came from originally? I assume it just wasn't plucked from thin air?

I believe (without evidence) that it was a holdover from previous rules.

The authors knew that they couldn't change basing. So when they began they just put a lot of assumptions into the game because you need to establish some parameters.
From that flowed among other things table size and army points.

The one weakeness of the moving down to 650 is a lot of army lists weren't drafted with that in mind. But I am still all for the 650 games as well.

I think too many people are too locked into 800. I think 650 is great and so is 900. As is the different table sizes.

[nikgaukroger]

So it would be wrong to go uniformly for smaller tables, but I hope we can break free of 6 x 4 800 pts default

May I enquire where the 800pt 6x4 arrangement came from originally? I assume it just wasn't plucked from thin air?

I believe (without evidence) that it was a holdover from previous rules.

One of those it has always been thus things. Certainly 6x4 has been the usual table size for comps in GB for decades.

The one weakeness of the moving down to 650 is a lot of army lists weren't drafted with that in mind. But I am still all for the 650 games as well.

650 was well within the range for design of lists. In terms of points they have something like 200 compulsory and can all make 1000 (although this does not necessarily apply to all sub-list options).

[Three]

I have to admit to having wondered about the rational behind the suggested 800pt/6x4. FoG has got me playing Ancients for the first time in decades, the last time I played regularily was WRG 5th; 6th and 7th passed me by and I've never even tried any of the DBx rules. I've also missed out on the growth of 15mm figures for the period. However, on occasions, I've found my interest waning during games, which have always been 800/6x4.

One of the attractions is how the game looks, some points have been touched on above, but BGs in 2 ranks and of a decent size are how I like to play with my toys. The number of games I've played is steadily growing, but I'm still a relative newcomer. That having been said, my experiences have so far been that 650/5x3 and 900 (+)/6x4 have produced consistently better games than 800/6x4. Someone posted in a thread elsewhere that many of the perceived problems with the rules disappear where the ratio of figures to frontage increases, something with which I entirely agree.

I don't know enough about how things worked historically to feel confident to comment on any of the rules mechanisms, but I do know when I've enjoyed a game, and I definitely enjoy 650/5x3 and 900/6x4 more than 800/6x4.

[philqw78]

And people's complaints about having to get different size tables for competitions are generally moot as, certainly at BHGS comps, the tables are taped to correct size anyway. And smaller playing areas give more room for: more players, more admin space, more trader space.

[Strategos69]

And people's complaints about having to get different size tables for competitions are generally moot as, certainly at BHGS comps, the tables are taped to correct size anyway. And smaller playing areas give more room for: more players, more admin space, more trader space.

And more importantly more room for putting casualties, getting your book and list without mixing with the game, throwing dice, leaving status markers that do not get confused with those of the game...and overall a proper place for putting your drinks!

[rbodleyscott]

The one weakeness of the moving down to 650 is a lot of army lists weren't drafted with that in mind.

They were - because 650 was what we deemed to be a suitable size for 28mm on 6 x 4 tables.

[mbsparta]

The one weakeness of the moving down to 650 is a lot of army lists weren't drafted with that in mind.

They were - because 650 was what we deemed to be a suitable size for 28mm on 6 x 4 tables.

.............. Most of our games fall into the 650 point/6x4 table variety. We also use 1" = 1MU. I feel this is critical to making the 6x4 table work. I have played using 1MU = 40mm and it is a totaly different game.

Mike B

[pyruse]

We tried 25mm games with 1MU = 40mm and felt it was too big for a 6x4 table.
We also tried with 1MU=1" and found it too small.
So now we use 1MU=30mm which seems a happy medium. It also make 2MU equal 1 base width, which makes distances easier to eyeball.

[philqw78]

Now books as well as porn advertised on the new and better forum. I'm impressed

[grahambriggs]

Now books as well as porn advertised on the new and better forum. I'm impressed

Nevertheless, it might be an improvement