Who does FoW Favor

[Blackcloud6]

I always play with Fog of War, but lately it seems to me to favor the defender as a turn ending early seems to me to hurt an attacker's momentum. What do you think?

[campsawyer]

Fred,

I believe it depends on the scenario, small and large scenarios tend to either not trigger it or inhibit larger forces. But I would never play without it as it makes you more efficient with your forces and focus on what you need to do. As an attacker, I might be wary of it and make sure I can activate all I want for a turn. As a defender, I will make sure that I am not in an exposed position as it could be dangerous. As a factor in the game, I believe that initiative has a bigger effect, but the combination of initiative and FoW provides the simplest variability to PG turns.

[Poor Yorek]

I submit that the categories of attacker and defender are less important than whether one side is favored to win relative to another: in such case, a variant event like FoW will favor the weaker side (the underdog) over a sufficient number of plays. Certain PG-specific issues such as the leadership chain-of-command and whether one's forces can take advantage of it due to the scenario's VC's or set-up restrictions will naturally impact matters also (as Alan has cited).

This issue is also behind a home-rule I use to adjudicate initiative ties (designed to lower the variance introduced by the RaW procedure).

That being said, I use FoW so that neither side can actually be certain that it can carry out all of the activations it desires in any given turn. For example, I find this requires one to think carefully about when and how to use OBA. Another good example is the delaying of one activation before taking an AT shot to avoid the "target moved in previous segment" penalty. An adverse FoW roll here can make one's face burn hot enough to cook an omelette! See my AAR for RuRB #3 for a rather dramatic example.

Hope this helps.

[Hugmenot]

There was a discussion about Fog of War in large scenarios.

http://www.pg-hq.com/comms/showthread.ph...Fog+of+War

I voted Defender. I don't like the rule as it applies to large scenarios (100+ non-transport pieces) and especially very large large scenarios (200+ non-transport pieces). I am waiting to see what is in the 4th edition rules before I continue experimenting with a 3d10 methodology in my solo plays.

[Blackcloud6]

There was a discussion about Fog of War in large scenarios.

I went and read over that discussion. There are a lot of good points. I pondered that in large scenarios maybe FoW could simply force a player to take a "pass" for that activation. That way it does not cut off most of the force from doing something but still throw a wrench in the plan. And you could add that it would only end the turn if it was the second pass in a row and will never count as the first pass (to prevent the opponent form ending the turn when he wants it to end).

I've almost always played with FoW but I think it hurts my attackers more so than the defenders. I tend to think that in my solo plays the defenders win more often but I'd have to go back through and check my playings to be sure. I may play the next scenario I play without it just to see how the attack goes.

[Shad]

I think it favors the side with the initiative advantage. In reality what we're talking about is Fog of War being rolled early in the turn and many activations going unused. When Fog of War comes late it's almost the same as not happening at all.

But if it comes early, the side with the higher initiative is always going to benefit because their high value / high risk units are going to be able to activate more often while the lower initiative side is prevented from bringing numbers to bear by lack of activations.

At least that's how it makes sense in my brain...

[waynebaumber]

FOW will normally favour the defender, unlike Hugmenot I think using FOW in large scenarios is a must, the larger the force the more likely things can go wrong and FOW simulates this well and easily.

FOW is also my security blanket when playing Herr Hughes.

[Brett Nicholson]

In many cases it favors the defender, at least initially. But when the defender has scads of units and leaders in need of rallying then it can quickly favor the attacker. Also of course depends on the scenario. Why it is essential to never take more than 3 activations for granted and try, as the attacker to organize their activations as if they only get three at all. So I voted that it really doesn't favor either side, at least in the long run of a scenario.

[vince hughes]

FOW is to me as per its title. It adds a fog that inhibits a player's assuredness that he can achieve all he wants in a turn.

It really does throw a mixer in the best of plans. Similarly, I think OBA is exactly the same effect. Its in there to add an ingredient of disruption that can throw-off the best of plans.

In general, the attacker suffers, but even in such situations as Peter or somebody else pointed out. You wait a turn to AT fire to avoid the move modifier on the target and BAM ! it cuts in.

One of the best rules of any game, though I do think that somewhere it might be on a sliding scale somehow dependent on the size of the scenario.

[campsawyer]

In the spirit of what FoW does for the scenarios, I do know there will be something coming along to help the initiative player with FoW, but it is not for free, you will need to make a choice and you might not get it every turn, but it is a small help.