Broken Rules

[nikgaukroger]

Rubbish

I've made much use of LH armies and a 2AP for an evade off table will hardly affect them as if handled properly you hardly ever have it happen anyway.

IMO not making this change will just maintain an annoyance for zero gain - would smack of a Barker-esque refusal to admit something is wrong

Alas you are looking at how you will change the use of your LH army ... but alas this is not at all the behaviour change that matters. Tim's is more along the lines that cause the big problems if our testing is anything to go by.

Si

Nope, I'm considering the effect on both the LH and the opponents and on due consideration that a 2AP for evade will be a benefit to the game.

[david53]

As one of the writers has said the effect of shooting is in relation to the ability of the LH to stand up to foot armies. Therefore by making it cost more to evade you should allow them to have an effect on armoured foot dropping the five to four to hit otherwise all you'll have is table wide armies moving over the table pushing LH armies off the edge.

I agree and see the logic to an extent, but having tried to push LH off the edge with a table-wide IC-led mostly armoured army, I still haven't even ever come close to achieving it. So I suspect the game balance may not need redressing

Why it takes at most 7 moves to cross the table with medium foot you deploy in 10 MU move 8MU first move 30 MU left 7 moves so a total of eight moves. Having an ic and a BG of on average 8 figures needing 5s to hit 3 hits required and a plus +2 if they do. As I see it without the extra shooting ability the LH would lose.

What you seem to miss is yes the LH scoot around but they don't do much damage to HF armoured, last night I shot at one BG of armoured spearman for at least four bounds with 2 and half BG LH without forcing a test. So lets be honest here yes they can get behind you but what can they do to you apart as you say from taking the camp.

[OldenTired]

[quote="david53
What you seem to miss is yes the LH scoot around but they don't do much damage to HF armoured, last night I shot at one BG of armoured spearman for at least four bounds with 2 and half BG LH without forcing a test. So lets be honest here yes they can get behind you but what can they do to you apart as you say from taking the camp.[/quote]

lancer LH can attack you in the rear. if they're unlucky they disrupt you AND force you to turn 180 to face. they then break off, hopefully not losing two bases (one in impact, one in melee).

it then take forever to turn around and proceed again.

plus, you're overstating move distances in the face of LH, since it's mostly charges bad dice can lead to it taking many, many turns to get to the other side.

[philqw78]

lancer LH can attack you in the rear. if they're unlucky they disrupt you AND force you to turn 180 to face. they then break off, hopefully not losing two bases (one in impact, one in melee).
it then take forever to turn around and proceed again.
plus, you're overstating move distances in the face of LH, since it's mostly charges bad dice can lead to it taking many, many turns to get to the other side.

Any LH can charge battle troops in flank or rear. If you only want to slow the foot down its more dangerous for the LH if it has lance. The foot do not all have to turn 180, depends on what the owning player wants. If the LH break off the foot re-form and carry on going forwards.

[footslogger]

Great thread and discussion. I'm very pleased with this set too. I haven't experienced the interpenetration problem so trust you that there is one.

I haven't experienced the terrain restriction by putting down a road but could see it and that sounds really easy to fix.

I have a slightly different take on the skirmisher thing. I was using later seleucids against LRR a couple of weeks ago (friendly game). At one point the whole seleucid pike block (2x12 ave pikes and the argyraspids) and the agema were destroyed. I had some allied cataphracts, gallic cav, and some supporting MF hillmen still in tact and everything else was skirmishers. We paused and observed that at this point it's a loss for the seleucids even though the game was still going. 1/3 of the legions were gone. It was unlikely I could hurt the romans any more and from a game perspective he'd never catch me if I wanted to just run around and be chased.

It doesn't seem like a realistic outcome to call this a draw. I'm not sure how to characterize this in the context of "problems" but we were both talking about some kind of house rule for tournaments not to allow the guy with all the skirmishers not to get caught and eek out a draw. It seems part of the difficulty is trying to accomodate battles like Carrhae and Pharsalus in the same system. To get the most gamers in you'd like to allow everything (and anything to fight anything) but if you restructured points or APs or something to better represent outcomes of stand-up fights, the light horse armies might not be viable any more.

[OldenTired]

The foot do not all have to turn 180, depends on what the owning player wants. If the LH break off the foot re-form and carry on going forwards.

are you certain about that? foot charged in the rear alone must entirely conform to the BG they're fighting, don't they? the reforming happens in the movement phase and isn't optional? (my rules are at home)

[jlopez]

Great thread and discussion. I'm very pleased with this set too. I haven't experienced the interpenetration problem so trust you that there is one.

I haven't experienced the terrain restriction by putting down a road but could see it and that sounds really easy to fix.

I have a slightly different take on the skirmisher thing. I was using later seleucids against LRR a couple of weeks ago (friendly game). At one point the whole seleucid pike block (2x12 ave pikes and the argyraspids) and the agema were destroyed. I had some allied cataphracts, gallic cav, and some supporting MF hillmen still in tact and everything else was skirmishers. We paused and observed that at this point it's a loss for the seleucids even though the game was still going. 1/3 of the legions were gone. It was unlikely I could hurt the romans any more and from a game perspective he'd never catch me if I wanted to just run around and be chased.

It doesn't seem like a realistic outcome to call this a draw. I'm not sure how to characterize this in the context of "problems" but we were both talking about some kind of house rule for tournaments not to allow the guy with all the skirmishers not to get caught and eek out a draw. It seems part of the difficulty is trying to accomodate battles like Carrhae and Pharsalus in the same system. To get the most gamers in you'd like to allow everything (and anything to fight anything) but if you restructured points or APs or something to better represent outcomes of stand-up fights, the light horse armies might not be viable any more.

That's precisely the behaviour that will earn a player at the Barcelona tournament a red card (-5 points) per move away from his oppponent. We had a case last year where a Swiss army chased a Condotta around difficult terrain until time ran out. It ain't going to happen again. If a player wants to play for draws, he can send in a list with Cesar's elite legions defending a roman fort and he doesn't need to turn up. I'll give him 40 points for four games, email him the results and I won't lose any more players from the competition circuit.

Julian

[footslogger]

That's precisely the behaviour that will earn a player at the Barcelona tournament a red card (-5 points) per move away from his oppponent. We had a case last year where a Swiss army chased a Condotta around difficult terrain until time ran out. It ain't going to happen again. If a player wants to play for draws, he can send in a list with Cesar's elite legions defending a roman fort and he doesn't need to turn up. I'll give him 40 points for four games, email him the results and I won't lose any more players from the competition circuit.

Julian

I like that solution! What if the skirmishers just sit in difficult going?

[philqw78]

That's precisely the behaviour that will earn a player at the Barcelona tournament a red card (-5 points) per move away from his oppponent. We had a case last year where a Swiss army chased a Condotta around difficult terrain until time ran out. It ain't going to happen again. If a player wants to play for draws, he can send in a list with Cesar's elite legions defending a roman fort and he doesn't need to turn up. I'll give him 40 points for four games, email him the results and I won't lose any more players from the competition circuit.
Julian

So players will be forced to suicide themselves, or their army depending what you feel is more sporting, in a bad match up?

[philqw78]

The foot do not all have to turn 180, depends on what the owning player wants. If the LH break off the foot re-form and carry on going forwards.

are you certain about that? foot charged in the rear alone must entirely conform to the BG they're fighting, don't they? the reforming happens in the movement phase and isn't optional? (my rules are at home)

"a bg that has some of its bases facing the enemy..contact flank or rear...is not forced to reform......." P70

[DavidT]

I have a slightly different take on the skirmisher thing. I was using later seleucids against LRR a couple of weeks ago (friendly game). At one point the whole seleucid pike block (2x12 ave pikes and the argyraspids) and the agema were destroyed. I had some allied cataphracts, gallic cav, and some supporting MF hillmen still in tact and everything else was skirmishers. We paused and observed that at this point it's a loss for the seleucids even though the game was still going. 1/3 of the legions were gone. It was unlikely I could hurt the romans any more and from a game perspective he'd never catch me if I wanted to just run around and be chased.

It doesn't seem like a realistic outcome to call this a draw.

The scoring/army break system used in competitions is nice and simple, but it does lead to problems like this. All BGs are rated equally at 2AP, so if you have 4 BGs, each with 12MF or HF and 7 BGs, each of 4 LH, then you could loose all the foot BGs and your camp, but not lose the army unless the enemy can catch the LH; so having lost two thirds of your army (and what are probably the core troops in the army) and your camp, you are still unbroken. In reality, the LH would have all headed home a long time ago, leaving the field to the enemy. This is probably an extreme example, but it does illustrate the problem with rating all BGs the same. DBM had the same problem, with cheap filler hiding at the rear while the good troops slugged it out, knowing that they could all die without breaking the command. DBMM has tried to fix this, but it has just given rise to a completely different set of problems. Now the good troops stay at the rear while the cheap filler is used to fight as it can all die without breaking the command!
I do think that rating all BGs the same is not realistic as certain troops in any army form the core of that army - if they are defeated then the army will crumble and a few units of skirmishers will not run around the battlefield trying to prevent a defeat. I'll leave it there as I cannot see what I am typing anymore!

[OldenTired]

The foot do not all have to turn 180, depends on what the owning player wants. If the LH break off the foot re-form and carry on going forwards.

are you certain about that? foot charged in the rear alone must entirely conform to the BG they're fighting, don't they? the reforming happens in the movement phase and isn't optional? (my rules are at home)

"a bg that has some of its bases facing the enemy..contact flank or rear...is not forced to reform......." P70

i withdraw and apologise.

[ottomanmjm]

To help solve the evade off table problem and the swarm armies being too hard to break perhaps the following rulle could help:

In addition to the rule of an army breaking when its AP count equals its BG count,
An army automatically breaks if 6 of its BGs (or 5 and its camp) are removed from from table, either through evading or routing off table or being reduced to 1 base through losses.

That way one or two BGs could evade off table, counting as 1AP lost but if too many other BGs are lost then the army starts to get demoralised and thinks about heading home too.

It may also mean that players spend more time trying to rally BGs before they run off table rather than putting all their commanders in the front rank of fighting BGs.

[footslogger]

I have a slightly different take on the skirmisher thing. I was using later seleucids against LRR a couple of weeks ago (friendly game). At one point the whole seleucid pike block (2x12 ave pikes and the argyraspids) and the agema were destroyed. I had some allied cataphracts, gallic cav, and some supporting MF hillmen still in tact and everything else was skirmishers. We paused and observed that at this point it's a loss for the seleucids even though the game was still going. 1/3 of the legions were gone. It was unlikely I could hurt the romans any more and from a game perspective he'd never catch me if I wanted to just run around and be chased.

It doesn't seem like a realistic outcome to call this a draw.

The scoring/army break system used in competitions is nice and simple, but it does lead to problems like this. All BGs are rated equally at 2AP, so if you have 4 BGs, each with 12MF or HF and 7 BGs, each of 4 LH, then you could loose all the foot BGs and your camp, but not lose the army unless the enemy can catch the LH; so having lost two thirds of your army (and what are probably the core troops in the army) and your camp, you are still unbroken. In reality, the LH would have all headed home a long time ago, leaving the field to the enemy. This is probably an extreme example, but it does illustrate the problem with rating all BGs the same. DBM had the same problem, with cheap filler hiding at the rear while the good troops slugged it out, knowing that they could all die without breaking the command. DBMM has tried to fix this, but it has just given rise to a completely different set of problems. Now the good troops stay at the rear while the cheap filler is used to fight as it can all die without breaking the command!
I do think that rating all BGs the same is not realistic as certain troops in any army form the core of that army - if they are defeated then the army will crumble and a few units of skirmishers will not run around the battlefield trying to prevent a defeat. I'll leave it there as I cannot see what I am typing anymore!

That is the point. Having said it, I'm not necessarily saying it needs to be "fixed." I'm very happy to have a set of rules that works really, really well and gets so many things right.

[OldenTired]

that said, you could always calculate break point on the relative cost of the lost BG. lose half your points, AND/OR half the BGs.

[jlopez]

That's precisely the behaviour that will earn a player at the Barcelona tournament a red card (-5 points) per move away from his oppponent. We had a case last year where a Swiss army chased a Condotta around difficult terrain until time ran out. It ain't going to happen again. If a player wants to play for draws, he can send in a list with Cesar's elite legions defending a roman fort and he doesn't need to turn up. I'll give him 40 points for four games, email him the results and I won't lose any more players from the competition circuit.
Julian

So players will be forced to suicide themselves, or their army depending what you feel is more sporting, in a bad match up?

Not at all, they have 800 points of troops on table, the same as their opponent. They should find a way of overcoming mismatches either through terrain, flank marching, good luck or whatever like generals had to in real life. Benny Hill chases around the table are just too ridiculous for words, players are welcome to do that at their club not in competition, at least not in the ones I umpire. Refusing a battle is perfectly legitimate at the strategic level but once you are on the battlefield it's too late. I want that reflected in the games.

With regards to Footslogger's comment about skirmishers sitting in terrain, I see that as perfectly legitimate. You can send in your troops after them. Same goes with skirmishers evading. I'm not going to punish a player for using his troops in a sensibly historical manner but that doesn't cover entire armies about facing and moving away from a threat.

Julian

[lawrenceg]

That's precisely the behaviour that will earn a player at the Barcelona tournament a red card (-5 points) per move away from his oppponent. We had a case last year where a Swiss army chased a Condotta around difficult terrain until time ran out. It ain't going to happen again. If a player wants to play for draws, he can send in a list with Cesar's elite legions defending a roman fort and he doesn't need to turn up. I'll give him 40 points for four games, email him the results and I won't lose any more players from the competition circuit.

Julian

A player may turn up with an army intending to win, but in any particular game it may become clear that he can't win. In that case, it is reasonable to allow him to play for a draw.

Having said that, there is a difference between getting a draw by resisting and getting a draw by running away (which is really an admission of defeat).

[nikgaukroger]

Not at all, they have 800 points of troops on table, the same as their opponent. They should find a way of overcoming mismatches either through terrain, flank marching, good luck or whatever like generals had to in real life.

Or indeed by manoeuvre which may involve some troops moving away from the enemy at some time - which you would penalise it would appear - in the way Dave Handley did at the ITC in a couple of game and by so doing obtained decisive vitories. (As did a couple of Spanish players BTW)

[madaxeman]

What you seem to miss is yes the LH scoot around but they don't do much damage to HF armoured, last night I shot at one BG of armoured spearman for at least four bounds with 2 and half BG LH without forcing a test. So lets be honest here yes they can get behind you but what can they do to you apart as you say from taking the camp.

Nope, I'm aware of this having seen it a few times

This isn't about "what can they do to me" - its more that an all LH army only needs to have 2 or 3 units of skirmishers to break through or sneak round the edge of a foot army, and then the rest can be pushed off table, and the camp eaten and the army still doesn't end up broken. In an extreme example, if I manage to flee 16 out of 19 enemy units off table AND capture their baggage so only 3 out of 19 original units are left on table, I reckon that really should be way beyond what is enough to count as a decisive win for me on a tactical level - but at the moment its not quite enough!

[mellis1644]

What you seem to miss is yes the LH scoot around but they don't do much damage to HF armoured, last night I shot at one BG of armoured spearman for at least four bounds with 2 and half BG LH without forcing a test. So lets be honest here yes they can get behind you but what can they do to you apart as you say from taking the camp.

Nope, I'm aware of this having seen it a few times

This isn't about "what can they do to me" - its more that an all LH army only needs to have 2 or 3 units of skirmishers to break through or sneak round the edge of a foot army, and then the rest can be pushed off table, and the camp eaten and the army still doesn't end up broken. In an extreme example, if I manage to flee 16 out of 19 enemy units off table AND capture their baggage so only 3 out of 19 original units are left on table, I reckon that really should be way beyond what is enough to count as a decisive win for me on a tactical level - but at the moment its not quite enough!

This comes back to the idea (I forget whose) of if the camp is lost then all troops who have fled the field become lost not evaded for points cost purposes. Thus, when the camp is lost all the evaded off the field troops become a 2 AP loss not one. That does not affect armies which do not have troops which evade off the field at all, but adds a little extra significance to the camps for some armies.

It means LH armies have to defend the camp, or keep troops on the table to avoid loosing, and really is only a little more complex than the evade off table being a different cost than BG's being lost.