Sword and Sorcery FoG

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:55 am

Historical = fictional or fictionalized battles between opponents whom we believe existed in history and we believe fought each other or could credibly have fought each other.

Alternate history = "Historical" battles between opponents in an alternate history.

Anachronism = battles between opponents existing in non-overlapping periods of time, whether historical or alternate history, unless of course fought on a planet like Tran (see Pournelle's Janissaries)) where they are contemporaneous.

Fantasy = warband victories, or other fantasy battles or realms

Mike

Redpossum · Post by **Redpossum** » Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:57 pm

vingthorr wrote:
Probert wrote:Since FoG allows you to fight a Roman versus Samurai battle, a certain amount of fantasy is already existant.
negative. anachronism, yes. fantasy, no.

caesar vs. genghis khan. both historical figures with historical armies = anachronistic matchup.

Gromm the goblin king vs. prince Decaprio of the lawn elves = fantasy

Dude, don't be dissin' them lawn elves. You disrespeck them homeboys and they gone open a whole can o whoopass on yew

Seriously, though, I take your point. I was personally thinking of some of the battles in the Janissary series by Jerry Pournelle, which involve no fantasy elements, per se, but rather anachronistic matchups and combinations. For example, the protagonist winds up leading an army of pikes, longbows, early medieval european heavy cavalry, and early byzantine cataphracts.

And of course there's always that lovely passage in Bored of the Rings by the Harvard Lampoon, "...the hobbits took up their double-edged putty knives, and Gandalf armed himself with an ancient weapon known to the elves as a Browning Automatic Rifle."

vingthorr · Post by **vingthorr** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:23 am

possum wrote:
vingthorr wrote:
Probert wrote:Since FoG allows you to fight a Roman versus Samurai battle, a certain amount of fantasy is already existant.
negative. anachronism, yes. fantasy, no.

caesar vs. genghis khan. both historical figures with historical armies = anachronistic matchup.

Gromm the goblin king vs. prince Decaprio of the lawn elves = fantasy

Dude, don't be dissin' them lawn elves. You disrespeck them homeboys and they gone open a whole can o whoopass on yew

lol yeah, I'm just goofing around. I love LOR stuff myself, just can't stand anything that smacks of Wallethammer(c)!!! I think it's a non-issue though, as opsrey and slitherine are both historical-type outfits, i just can't see them publishing fantasy stuff.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:42 am

We could set up a fantasy sub forum for discussion of these type of isues to avoid offending our hisotircal hard core

Is there enough interest in this to make it worth while?

azrael86 · Post by **azrael86** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:40 pm

possum wrote:[
Seriously, though, I take your point. I was personally thinking of some of the battles in the Janissary series by Jerry Pournelle, which involve no fantasy elements, per se, but rather anachronistic matchups and combinations. For example, the protagonist winds up leading an army of pikes, longbows, early medieval european heavy cavalry, and early byzantine cataphracts.

There's also Feist's Midkemia. Leaving out the fantasy bits you get Feudal Europe and Japan.

MARVIN_THE_ARVN · Post by **MARVIN_THE_ARVN** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:59 pm

Why would having a fantasy book be so bad? If you dont like it you dont have to use it.

It could also get more people interested in non-GW fantasy games and then into historical based gaming.

Also some of the FOG armies ive played against or seen would fit right in with a fantasy game anyway

willb · Post by **willb** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:04 pm

iainmcneil wrote:We could set up a fantasy sub forum for discussion of these type of isues to avoid offending our hisotircal hard core

Is there enough interest in this to make it worth while?

There may be. The yahoo FOG fantasy group already has army lists for Lord of the Rings and Conan.

Probert · Post by **Probert** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:28 pm

I don't think having a fantasy book or books would be a bad or terrible thing. Some people might enjoy them a lot.

As to Fantasy FoG offending the 'hardcore historical' guys, who cares. We are still talking about moving small toy soldiers around on a table top and rolling dice to see which group of toy soldiers triumphs. To the vast majority of people this is odd behavior at best. To be concerned that one sub-group of people in a fringe hobby is concerned that another group is geeky beyond the acceptable limits of toy soldierdom is insane.

That being said I have no patience for LARPers. They should be banished.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:53 am

some of the FOG armies ive .... seen would fit right in with a fantasy game anyway

Is this your Hobbits?

MARVIN_THE_ARVN · Post by **MARVIN_THE_ARVN** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:19 am

some of the FOG armies ive .... seen would fit right in with a fantasy game anyway

Is this your Hobbits?

They are Lilliputians not Hobbits (I use 6mm based to 15mm)

Hobbits would be just silly

Sadly enough im talking about some of the so called historical armies ive meet

zellak · Post by **zellak** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:56 am

i would like to see a S&S sub forum.

I dont have time or the skill to paint, and having bought the FoG rules wanted to get started as quickly as possible.
So i bought loads of prepainted Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures (WotC), another guy at my club did the same.

And now we have FoG started at our club , one of the other guys is building a Roman Army , okay he only has our S&S stuff to play against at present. But further down the line i can see us getting some proper Ancient armies.

The one problem with using other miniatures is base sizes.

Normally LotR, GW/WH,DDM, are on 25mm bases . As they dont fit on the 25mm frontage in FoG, we are using 5 inch frontage movement trays per element. So we double the movement (to keep the wheeling circles correct) and ranges.

Anyone else out there got a better solution ?

Oh and i have a question ... are there no heavy infantry with bow in the entire ancient / dark age/ medieval period ?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:05 am

There are no HF with bow. Having a Bow makes you MF in the design philosophy I think.

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:56 am

philqw78 wrote:There are no HF with bow. Having a Bow makes you MF in the design philosophy I think.

That seems to be the philosophy. HF Defensive Spearmen with Bow would seem overpowered.

However, rationales and therefore troop types may differ in fantasy contexts where such a type would be appropriate. The practical tack taken in the Yahoo FoG fantasy forum (unofficial) is to encourage lists compatible with normal FoG design philosophy and practices so they can be played under the rules as written and against historical lists, while also encouraging additional modifications of troop types and special rules to fit relevant fantasy contexts.

A sub-forum on fantasy could be useful, probably with a cagey disclaimer that it does not represent any commitment by Sitherine to publish anything fantasy-related in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately this would seem credible for the next few years given the Renaissance and Napoleonic versions in development.

Mike

Redpossum · Post by **Redpossum** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:44 pm

I would say that the HF category implies a formation too tight for the use of a bow. After all, a bow does require a certain amount of elbow room to use, and a certain amount of spacing to avoid quilling the archer in the rank ahead of you

zellak · Post by **zellak** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:40 am

possum wrote:I would say that the HF category implies a formation too tight for the use of a bow. After all, a bow does require a certain amount of elbow room to use, and a certain amount of spacing to avoid quilling the archer in the rank ahead of you

I doubt if that is the reason....there are plenty of HF in history with two handed axes.

zellak · Post by **zellak** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:49 am

MikeK wrote:
philqw78 wrote:There are no HF with bow. Having a Bow makes you MF in the design philosophy I think.
That seems to be the philosophy. HF Defensive Spearmen with Bow would seem overpowered.

However, rationales and therefore troop types may differ in fantasy contexts where such a type would be appropriate. The practical tack taken in the Yahoo FoG fantasy forum (unofficial) is to encourage lists compatible with normal FoG design philosophy and practices so they can be played under the rules as written and against historical lists, while also encouraging additional modifications of troop types and special rules to fit relevant fantasy contexts.

A sub-forum on fantasy could be useful, probably with a cagey disclaimer that it does not represent any commitment by Sitherine to publish anything fantasy-related in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately this would seem credible for the next few years given the Renaissance and Napoleonic versions in development.

Mike

Surely trooptypes are only overpowered if their points value is set to low ?

Its just a matter of playtesting and finding the right cost ?

Rattleshirt · Post by **Rattleshirt** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:51 pm

Ok, it's been several days and I've taken a few deep breaths...

My earlier posting was more about past experiences and non-FoG game systems.. I have to remember that I've come to the promised land with FoG.

So, I'd be open to this. Not sure about those I play with, but it's at least interesting.

zellak · Post by **zellak** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:04 am

At least we are giving the opportunity to some wallet-hammer guys to try an excellent set of ancient wargame rules.

i find once you start playing the troops become spearmen/archers/axemen anyway, and i tend to forget they are frogfolk/catfolk/goatfolk.

Seldon · Post by **Seldon** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:33 am

I for one would really enjoy a fantasy version. Specially one that would be generic and in which we could use all the minis from "other" companies. Also I like FOG so much that I would love to see what the authors can come up with to accomodate a fantasy universe.

I know it is just wishful thinking at this time since they have many projects on the pipeline.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:52 pm

Ok, a fantasy forum has been set up. Feel free to discuss anything and everything related to FoG in fantasy games there. We'd love to bring the Yahoo group over and let them use this area so feel free to let people know about it. Anythign we can do to support you guys - just let us know.

Find it here - viewforum.php?f=71