One of the other things changing in this revision is the capture of artillery, in future the norm will be that captured artillery is removed in the JAP.

The Elites would get the advantage that they wouldn't need to commit their commander.

Whilst I can see that better armour reducing your opponents re-rolls rather than enhancing your own makes better thematic sense, what happens to Poor troops fighting better armoured opponents? Would they re-roll 5s and 6s?

It will be down to each organiser but a lesson learnt from the FoG AM V2 update (which admittedly was more substantial than ours) was that if you take too long people lose enthusiasm. In terms of timing, I'm pretty confident that the updates will not be ready in time for Roll Call in April, but I'd ...

Having carried out this exercise, if the points change, the most important thing will be to produce a table to issue to everyone with the revised points costs for each troop type in each army list. Three is quite a bit of work in this, but if you want people to work out their own points for their f...

Tim is right. Lowering Superior break points was playrested for Fog AM v2 and was universally unpopular. Currently people only take Average mounted when compulsory or for rear support. Making them cheaper would not make them more attractive.

A reroll is the nearest we have to half a POA. Remember also the current proposal gives troops with better armour if they are otherwise at a negative POA.

Your understanding is correct.

One of the bizarre changes that was made to FoG AM was that cavalry could turn 180 degrees twice in one turn and move, but couldn't turn 180 degrees once and move. This was originally considered as an option, but was found in playtesting to be too powerful, allowing the cavalry to shoot from maximum...

Our thought was to replace the percentages with the table so you don't have to work it out.

A good analysis but there are other considerations, e.g. Arquebus and Musket are Shot and hence ignore armour in melee. They also give -1 in CTs to Cavalry and Light Horse.

Is there a specific Foot interaction that you think would be irreparably affected?

Thank you for your thoughts David. In the original points system Cavalry were charged a 2 point premium for the ability to evade. This was especially poor value for those that can't. They already have the disadvantage of being less resilient to firearm shooting. The Tatars are competitive against th...

It sounds like maybe the people at your club use them more historically. Unfortunately, it's also possible to use them as a kind of Light Horse with Musket, as Keith describes above. The purpose of the proposal is to prevent that and force more historical usage.

Thank you for spotting that. I've fixed it now.

It's a valid point and something I did consider when thinking about Dragoons but I think it is an added complication that we don't need. in most games it won't arise and It would require a number of additional rules such as what happens if enemy contact the marker.

As requested, here are a few examples showing how the latest suggestion compares to the existing position. Example 1 A - Louis XIV (Unarmoured, Superior) v B - L of A (Armoured Average). Both DH with Pistol/Pistol. Currently: B has + POA for better armour. A will reroll 1s Proposed: Neither have POA...

I think some of the examples have shown that the reroll option won't do the job on its own, so we've had another think. This one is somewhat inelegant but we think it may provide the fix we're looking for without breaking anything else. So, the next suggestion is (and if people like it I know we'll ...

I wonder whether therefore we should change the Cohesion Test wording for %age losses to:- "For each 25% of original base losses" This was introduced into Fog AM in V2. The last I heard they were proposing to revert to the original in V3. It would be worth checking with Terry why that is.

1 or 3 - not both.

Since these address different issues why do you regard them as an either/or option?