So I was reading the list of events for the upcoming CANCON 2024 (Australia Day weekend) and was reminded that Field of Glory Napoleonic 2 (FoGN 2) is now Glory is Fleeting Napoleonic v1.
As far as I have found out in the very short time researching its new identity, the official rules are not published yet but they are complete. Enough to be the official rules at a major gaming convention. The person responsible for their debut belongs to the same wargaming group who've always provided a core following of the original Field of Glory Napoleonic. Judging from interest shown for the upcoming event from overseas, the rules still maintains it core following here in this part of the gaming world.
Apparently the renaming implies this new iteration is now so far removed from the original Field of Glory Napoloenic necessitating retitling.
Only minor note: my search engine seemed to confuse it with a published set of Napoleonic papers of the same name. So maybe they might need to rethink the name. Or, as I soon discovered upon refining my search request, simply append "rules".
The organiser of the event happens to be one of the co-authors of the now-defunct FoGN 2 rulebook. That they went to all that trouble only for a total reboot seems both discouraging and yet makes sense. The original was a serious mish-mash hobbled together on the fly. FoGN 2 attempted to straighten out that mess and give some sense of coherency and order. But it never really addressed the complexity of the rules themselves with their awkward game mechanics. Plus, many found the concept of corps-level gaming a bit perplexing: many were familiar with the clouds of skirmishers in front of the compact formations. This familiarity did not translate over to FoGN and FoGN 2 all that well.
Now it seems to me, without having even seen this new ruleset, that Glory is Fleeting Napoleonic version 1 looks to be the next step in the evolution begun by Field of Glory Napoleon over a decade ago.
Below is a link to a recent batrep by someone who has used these rules. Their review is quite favourable (understandable) for the most part.
No comments:
Post a Comment