cheesy rule

david53 · Post by **david53** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:21 pm

dave_r wrote:Could you go and repeat that in the Italian speaking forum, where I believe they are about to start burning effigy's of me...

And we should'nt because

*

*In no way do i condone the use of violence against said Dave R...............

david53 · Post by **david53** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:25 pm

marioslaz wrote:who like FOG and who left DBM due to nasty use of rules by so called top-players.

Quite agree but check out Petes post, I think you may just find the top players taking a lead in the UK. So tell your friends to stick with it FOG will get over this I'm sure.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:27 pm

petedalby wrote: There is some similarity between this thread and the one on cheesy terrain - the use of a road to restrict a flank. I've tried to do this myself and on reflection I shouldn't have done - it is cheese - even though the rules allow it.

How is it cheese?

But now you will only be half cheesy and use only the river to block an edge

spikemesq · Post by **spikemesq** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:13 pm

Wow! I haven't seen a rule this broken since the FZOD!

Look for this fantasy deployment (my graphic/smilies/ASCII skillz suck).

BG of 4xKn (drilled) in 2x2 formation on either side of a single line of 6-8 trash LF.

When convenient, either Kn BG can turn 90 degrees and jet through to join the other BG.

Talk about gimmicky re-deployment!

Spike

jlopez · Post by **jlopez** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:30 pm

petedalby wrote:Once again we are at a point where we could use some author intervention.

For my part I will try not to deliberately engineer this scenario. It would be helpful if others would agree to do the same....

There is some similarity between this thread and the one on cheesy terrain - the use of a road to restrict a flank. I've tried to do this myself and on reflection I shouldn't have done - it is cheese - even though the rules allow it.

I will pursue the Gandhi option - be the change you want to see - and undertake not to do this again. I can still field a River and 2 open areas. Or as Julian has noted elsewhere, tournament organisers could stipulate that all Roads must be placed last - that would kill the road abuse.

Not sure there's such an easy solution to this one though.

To put it into context - it is about the only serious wrinkle we've found thus far - don't let it put you off FOG!

I agree that this problem needs the authors' intervention ASAP.

With regards to your use of the road/river combination in our game, I wasn't bothered. Given the size of my army (and luck) it wasn't very relevant. If I'd been using Teutonic I might have been annoyed but...

Julian

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:33 pm

Just being a devils advocate here.

You have a double area marsh that you want to get your knights around.

You put a single line of Light Infantry into the marsh so that one part of the light infantry is outside the left hand edge and one part outside the right hand edge.

The knights move to interpenetrate the light foot from left to right.

If in two ranks, they have to get their entire front rank through the light infantry base and allow at least a small part of the second rank to touch the left hand light infantry base, and then pop through all the way to the other side, something like a wormhole through the space time continuum.

My question is, what is their rate of movement?

Part of their movement (even though not depicted) is through the marsh. Are they thus moving at the 'difficult' rate? If they are, this would severely impact upon the distance they could move to get the interpenetration.

This, at the very least, would be an angle I would be taking if this was ever tried on me. Additionally, if they hadn't measured correctly (moved all their bases without leaving something back to measure by) I'd be calling for the move to be voided as they can't guarantee that they had the movement necessary.

These, and other 'rules' I feel are the best way to deal with people who try to use this technique to an unfair advantage.

durrati · Post by **durrati** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:38 pm

philqw78 wrote:
petedalby wrote: There is some similarity between this thread and the one on cheesy terrain - the use of a road to restrict a flank. I've tried to do this myself and on reflection I shouldn't have done - it is cheese - even though the rules allow it.
How is it cheese?

But now you will only be half cheesy and use only the river to block an edge

Because it is using a road in such a way as to make it less likely that your opponent can place any terrain.

The only arguement that this is not cheese is that you believe that the way the terrain rules were written this is an intended effect. Do you believe that to be the case?

This is not the same as using a river to block an edge, as it seems clear that giving the possibility of one flank being blocked by a river is an intended effect.

The arguement that if the rules allow an action then it is perfectly acceptable to do within a game I personally find a very weak one.

For example, if I feel that I will lose a game there is nothing in the rules to stop me deliberatly taking large amounts of time in each of my turns to move my troops to ensure that I can not lose in the time available. The rules allow this, does not change the fact that if I did it I would be a twat.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:51 pm

spikemesq wrote:Wow! I haven't seen a rule this broken since the FZOD!

Look for this fantasy deployment (my graphic/smilies/ASCII skillz suck).

BG of 4xKn (drilled) in 2x2 formation on either side of a single line of 6-8 trash LF.

When convenient, either Kn BG can turn 90 degrees and jet through to join the other BG.

Talk about gimmicky re-deployment!

Spike

BTW rules not broken

Knights can't move through LF page 48 3rd bullet point says what can pass through LF and Knights arn't there.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:52 pm

ravenflight wrote:Just being a devils advocate here.

You have a double area marsh that you want to get your knights around.

You put a single line of Light Infantry into the marsh so that one part of the light infantry is outside the left hand edge and one part outside the right hand edge.

The knights move to interpenetrate the light foot from left to right.

If in two ranks, they have to get their entire front rank through the light infantry base and allow at least a small part of the second rank to touch the left hand light infantry base, and then pop through all the way to the other side, something like a wormhole through the space time continuum.

My question is, what is their rate of movement?

Part of their movement (even though not depicted) is through the marsh. Are they thus moving at the 'difficult' rate? If they are, this would severely impact upon the distance they could move to get the interpenetration.

This, at the very least, would be an angle I would be taking if this was ever tried on me. Additionally, if they hadn't measured correctly (moved all their bases without leaving something back to measure by) I'd be calling for the move to be voided as they can't guarantee that they had the movement necessary.

These, and other 'rules' I feel are the best way to deal with people who try to use this technique to an unfair advantage.

Just being a pain Knights can't move through LF page 48 3rd bullet point says what can pass through Knights arn't there.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:57 pm

Dave any mounted can move through LF

edit
bloody hell they can't

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:58 pm

But since I am such a cheese mechanic, or purveyor of cheesy comestibles, I will be taking an army to Roll Call with no light foot, +4 PBI, every time I win initiative I will select mountain terrain and deploy neither road nor river.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:01 pm

And you will all again accuse me of cheese no doubt

david53 · Post by **david53** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:04 pm

durrati wrote:

The arguement that if the rules allow an action then it is perfectly acceptable to do within a game I personally find a very weak one.

For example, if I feel that I will lose a game there is nothing in the rules to stop me deliberatly taking large amounts of time in each of my turns to move my troops to ensure that I can not lose in the time available. The rules allow this, does not change the fact that if I did it I would be a twat.

Why is it a weak arguement to say thats what written is whats ment. If that is the case why should i ever let MF move 4mu through rough going just cause its in the rules.

About taking your time I think people already do this its all part of the game ie gamesmenship its called. Its human nature if your losing you ain't going to move fast so you lose quicker. With a game with two humans involved you will get this behiviour humans don't want to lose and wargamers don't either.

spikemesq · Post by **spikemesq** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:41 pm

david53 wrote:
spikemesq wrote:Wow! I haven't seen a rule this broken since the FZOD!

Look for this fantasy deployment (my graphic/smilies/ASCII skillz suck).

BG of 4xKn (drilled) in 2x2 formation on either side of a single line of 6-8 trash LF.

When convenient, either Kn BG can turn 90 degrees and jet through to join the other BG.

Talk about gimmicky re-deployment!

Spike
BTW rules not broken

Knights can't move through LF page 48 3rd bullet point says what can pass through LF and Knights arn't there.

So look for Lancers, Shooty Cv, etc. instead of Kn.

Rule still broken.

Your move.

Spike

durrati · Post by **durrati** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:56 pm

I did not say it is a weak arguement that to say what is written is what is meant.

I said I find it a weak arguement that if the rules allow an action it is then perfectly acceptable. Your example about MF moving 4mu clearly misses the point.

Yes, some people do seem to have such a burning desire to not lose a game of toy soldiers they are willing to behave like a twat, which yes they have the right to do, other people also have an equal right to point this out to them. Can anyone tell me who TCL is?

My experience is that such gamesmanship as you refer to it is rare(ish). My experience is that if I am in the rare postion of winning a game my opponent takes it with good grace, continues to play to a decent speed and shakes my hand and says 'good game' if I by some stroke of fortune I manage not to screw it up.

So in the example of moving through LF to gain an advantage, I would personally chose not to do this - someone previously described this as the Ghandi option, which puts it rather well I feel. If someone did this to me then I would have to make my own decisions on how to respond. If I felt that it was just an accident I would ignore it, if I felt that it was done to manufacture a couple of extra mu I would probably attempt to discuss it in a good natured manner and carry on playing. If it was used to get a BG of elephants through a wood, well, the rules allow it so I would not complain, even though there seems to be a large amount of er 'gamesmanship' involved. I would probably then chose to go to the toilet and get a cup of tea (these two actions being seperate mind), this may take me a rather large amount of time and it may mean that I spend very little time at the table with my opponent but the rules allow this so it is just as acceptable.

Of course, this may piss my opponents off and give them a very poor opinion of me. I would be comfortable with that though, so no harm done.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:24 pm

durrati wrote:The only arguement that this is not cheese is that you believe that the way the terrain rules were written this is an intended effect. Do you believe that to be the case?

Yes I do. I also believe it to be a valid tactic of a cavalry heavy army to fight in as little terrain as possible.

durrati wrote:Yes, some people do seem to have such a burning desire to not lose a game of toy soldiers they are willing to behave like a twat,

I have a desire to have a fun game of soldiers. As I have stated above I won't be using roads, rivers or light foot at the next competition I attend. As I do not wish to appear a twat.

durrati · Post by **durrati** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:33 pm

philqw78 wrote: As I have stated above I won't be using roads, rivers or light foot at the next competition I attend. As I do not wish to appear a twat.

Sorry, I don't understand, what is so wrong about using roads, rivers or light foot? I have at no point ever seen or heard anyone, on this forum or elsewhere, suggest that to do so is in anyway out of order.

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:34 pm

philqw78 wrote:
durrati wrote:The only arguement that this is not cheese is that you believe that the way the terrain rules were written this is an intended effect. Do you believe that to be the case?
Yes I do. I also believe it to be a valid tactic of a cavalry heavy army to fight in as little terrain as possible.
durrati wrote:Yes, some people do seem to have such a burning desire to not lose a game of toy soldiers they are willing to behave like a twat,
I have a desire to have a fun game of soldiers. As I have stated above I won't be using roads, rivers or light foot at the next competition I attend. As I do not wish to appear a twat.

Remember that means no shooty light horse and no steppe terrain in the next competition as well. Gotta nip those Dave_R tendencies in the bud

Chris

durrati · Post by **durrati** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:58 pm

batesmotel wrote:
Remember that means no shooty light horse and no steppe terrain in the next competition as well. Gotta nip those Dave_R tendencies in the bud

Chris

Have not paid any attention to the FOG tournament scene for about a year - when did Dave get promoted to be the Dark Lord? For what reason? And has he started to support Man U yet?

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:14 pm

david53 wrote:Just being a pain Knights can't move through LF page 48 3rd bullet point says what can pass through Knights arn't there.

I'm quite pleased you pointed this out, as it proves my stance that I'm not a cheese player so wasn't fully aware of the interprentration rules... but the same issue can be bought up about Cavalry and/or Elephants (or anything that can interpenetrate anything).