Broken Rules

[Xelee]

dave the points are arbitrary anyhow. we just have a convention where we play 800.

why? because we used to play 400 under DBM.

having played lots of 650 (more a dozen games, won a tournament), i've yet to see wall to wall armour.

I'm having the very same conversation with the old DBM players locally, at least at our club we have been able to stick to 600 AP. If we're lucky, our comps can switch to that standard (or 650) too. 5'x3'is plenty of room on the table to give every one a fair go while restricting slow 'give ground' play and we still get a mix of foot, horse and whatever fancy things players want to bring. One list has two BGs of Elephants, so I don't think the lower cap denies anyone anything.

[david53]

yep, and 650 on a 5x3 is great game. However, you dont necessarily need to reduce the points, as the game changes through the 6" edge of the world becoming relatively larger, flank march threats and larger terrain pieces.

Sorry but I have to disagree with you, removing 12 inchs of the board without adjusting the points will swing the whole balance of the game especially if you keep the terrian as it stands as well.

It will allow a armoured MF force or HF force to go wall to wall this would kill any manourve and force the game to become a HF/MF bash in the middle.

I'll be at the event in Manchester doing the 5' table but with 650 points which works well.

dave the points are arbitrary anyhow. we just have a convention where we play 800.

why? because we used to play 400 under DBM.

having played lots of 650 (more a dozen games, won a tournament), i've yet to see wall to wall armour.

The whole point is add 150 points to your army take 12 inchs of the table and you will see wall to wall troops. Yes they still play 400 points in mm but the most games i have played using that rule set is deploy in the middle facing each other and go for it. With fog you manovure.

[david53]

dave the points are arbitrary anyhow. we just have a convention where we play 800.

why? because we used to play 400 under DBM.

having played lots of 650 (more a dozen games, won a tournament), i've yet to see wall to wall armour.

I'm having the very same conversation with the old DBM players locally, at least at our club we have been able to stick to 600 AP. If we're lucky, our comps can switch to that standard (or 650) too. 5'x3'is plenty of room on the table to give every one a fair go while restricting slow 'give ground' play and we still get a mix of foot, horse and whatever fancy things players want to bring. One list has two BGs of Elephants, so I don't think the lower cap denies anyone anything.

This give ground idea is the tactics of LH armies ie Skythian Mongols you will see even fewer that at this present time if you cut 12 inchs from the table width. FOG allows you to manourve which other sets don't sorry don't know about DBM but under MM you both deploy in the middle oppisite and go for it well thats the experience I've had.

Right lets look at the deployment.

15 inchs for your skirmishers so thats 30 inchs for both leaving a 6inch move between them so you can charge stright away.

10 inch move normal troops so thats 20 inchs leaves 16 inch to move so four moves to hit each other.

Going down this route you'll be deploying like MM to close to allow any proper manourving.

Still just my idea.

[Xelee]

This give ground idea is the tactics of LH armies ie Skythian Mongols you will see even fewer that at this present time if you cut 12 inchs from the table width. FOG allows you to manourve which other sets don't sorry don't know about DBM but under MM you both deploy in the middle oppisite and go for it well thats the experience I've had.

Right lets look at the deployment.

15 inchs for your skirmishers so thats 30 inchs for both leaving a 6inch move between them so you can charge stright away.

10 inch move normal troops so thats 20 inchs leaves 16 inch to move so four moves to hit each other.

Going down this route you'll be deploying like MM to close to allow any proper manourving.

Still just my idea.

It's been my experience that this layout lets two footline armies get stuck in quickly if they want but leaves LH armies pleny of options. They still have 5' of width to play with and do not have to deploy the max distance forward so get plenty of room to manouver. The one thing they can't do is simply deploy and expect many foot's worth of depth to give straight backward. It doesn't really stop them swirling around just out of reach and shooting though.

[david53]

This give ground idea is the tactics of LH armies ie Skythian Mongols you will see even fewer that at this present time if you cut 12 inchs from the table width. FOG allows you to manourve which other sets don't sorry don't know about DBM but under MM you both deploy in the middle oppisite and go for it well thats the experience I've had.

Right lets look at the deployment.

15 inchs for your skirmishers so thats 30 inchs for both leaving a 6inch move between them so you can charge stright away.

10 inch move normal troops so thats 20 inchs leaves 16 inch to move so four moves to hit each other.

Going down this route you'll be deploying like MM to close to allow any proper manourving.

Still just my idea.

It's been my experience that this layout lets two footline armies get stuck in quickly if they want but leaves LH armies pleny of options. They still have 5' of width to play with and do not have to deploy the max distance forward so get plenty of room to manouver. The one thing they can't do is simply deploy and expect many foot's worth of depth to give straight backward. It doesn't really stop them swirling around just out of reach and shooting though.

if your not in range these is no use cause HF can just ignore LH that go behind them and the five to hit armoured you need time to do damage take a BG of eight armoured with rear support and an IC you need three to hit no minus then and plus 3 so you'd need a 4 to drop a level and how many time do you get fives. Check out how many shooty Cavalry armies go to the events in the UK that are 650 points not many. So if you add 800 points LH armies would IMO dissapear.

[petedalby]

I find the 650 pts on 5x3, alot of fun,

That's good to hear Spike - but I was supporting the proposal of 800AP on a 5x3 table.

I'm not suggesting that this should become the standard format - but unless someone tries it we won't know how it goes.

As Julian also notes, flank marches are virtually unused currently. There might be an incentive for them on a 5x3 table. So LH armies are not automatically redundant - they just have to adjust their plan.

Yes, you might see more wall to wall armies, but so what? They are still easily beaten by focussing your attack. At the moment comps are dominated by LH/Cav and MF. This might just redress the balance?

I hope you're able to try it Julian - I think it would address some of the concerns you've raised and perhaps avoid some of your more draconian proposals?

[madaxeman]

... five to hit armoured you need time to do damage take a BG of eight armoured with rear support and an IC you need three to hit no minus then and plus 3 so you'd need a 4 to drop a level and how many time do you get fives.

If your opponentscan fill the table with BGs of 8 with rear support and an IC you are probably being cheated, as they will be using a lot more then 800 points!

[dave_r]

On a five foot table it is just about possible.

[madaxeman]

It will allow a armoured MF force or HF force to go wall to wall this would kill any manourve and force the game to become a HF/MF bash in the middle.

IMO the reason people like me attempt to take "wall to wall" MF/HF is because the experience of playing LH armies is otherwise so un-winable, one sided and tedious - even one game in four - that my army design for competitions has become almost totally about preventing a defeat/death through boredom in the one game against loads of LH. Doing well is a bonus.

If LH were ever-so-slightly de-fanged (which is the whole thrust of this thread) I would see no need to take a wall-to-wall anti-LH army as I could expect a "normal" army to sometimes beat a LH army (if the terrain falls right etc), and sometimes lose to them - but at least I would have a chance. A wall-to-wall MF/HF army is also very vulnerable to a narrow, super-tough MF/HF, Kn or Cataphract army that can drive straight through it before it can redeploy. So these armies might start appearing more often as well - and they are classic types that a LH army can expect to do well against.

IMO De-fanging LH (however you do it) would mean armies like the ones you are so keen on have a BETTER chance of actually WINNING games, and also have just BETTER games full stop against the likes of me, because I would be far more tempted to take more balanced armies a LH force could expect to beat.

[david53]

As Julian also notes, flank marches are virtually unused currently. There might be an incentive for them on a 5x3 table. So LH armies are not automatically redundant - they just have to adjust their plan.

Thats strange I use one all the time? but you see I plan for it I don't just do it on the table on the day, and I'm sure I'm not the only one to use them.

Can't see the point of HF doing one though, so how would it become more used than it is now. Who would do it on a five foot table if they don't do it now?in fact what is to stop them doing it.

[petedalby]

Thats strange I use one all the time?

Fair enough - but I find them increasingly rare. In my last 3 comps = 17 games, only 1 opponent flank marched.

Who would do it on a five foot table if they don't do it now?in fact what is to stop them doing it.

Those with cav/LH armies who find that 5' isn't enough room to get around their opponents. With the current 6' table there seems little point.

[OldenTired]

outflanks - Those with cav/LH armies who find that 5' isn't enough room to get around their opponents. With the current 6' table there seems little point.

might also make ambushes worthwhile.

as it is you can have a marker sitting there for the entire game and no enemy gets within sight of it.

david53 should maybe give it a try before he continues to blackhat the idea of 5' tables...

[david53]

Those with cav/LH armies who find that 5' isn't enough room to get around their opponents. With the current 6' table there seems little point.

TBH I don't know why people don't use a flank march in their games especially if they are using LH/Cav it gives you a 6 inch gap to push troops down.

The only time I don't use one if I am also playing a LH/Cav.

What people don't want to do IMO is to send a general off table with some BG it is a risk and at times for me they have failed to come on as at last weeks Northern doubles came on the last bound. Its a risk some people don't want to do.

[philqw78]

I used a flank march 5/6 games at Britcon, didn't do me any harm.

[david53]

david53 should maybe give it a try before he continues to blackhat the idea of 5' tables...

I have played in the two events on five foot tables(12 games) here so I have more experience than most to comment with regard to these tables sizes.

As we are commenting on how these would effect each others play. Since I allways well 98% play with a Cavalry/Light Horse army I have never placed any mounted troops in ambushs nor would I feel the need to.

I am not just 'blackhat?' this idea without both research and experience, what more do you need to comment above something.

So until someone convinces me otherwise I will still stick my my idea that without the drop in points we should stick to four foot tables.

[shall]

All good chat.

As JD hs said there won' be rule changes for some considerable time, although we have a private list as a team of ideas for the future. ... we've always had a pope of course ... But I must say nothing super radical on the list as nothing seems broken, most a list of tweaks.

On the LH issue I will take some convinincing, but will chat it through with the masses at Roll Call and Warfare. Nik maybe we could have a game with your light horse and I will take a HF army and see how we get on with 2AP theory. As I said, willing to be connvinced - but not anywhere close to it yet.

Got married Saturday!! Off on Honeymoon when back. Just picking up on JDs point can we open a stream per issue in hear now and track them that way as future possibilities. It will add to our log of long term thoughts and be easierto pick up then.

On the table sizes my view on this ha always been to deisng the rules for a core table size and let table organisers vary it. Clearly when you change table sizes army viability alters a bit given a fixed point system ,but this is part of the fun in trying to see if your fav army is now a dud on a 5x3 table with 2 1/2 hour games - thanks to Hammy for an excellent UK Games Expo comp with that format.

I am all for "variety is the spice of life approach" personally.

best wishes

Si (and Magdalene) Hall!!

[OldenTired]

big congrats to mr and mrs hall!

may you always roll high on cohesion tests.

[philqw78]

From Simon's request above I am going to split this topic and copy some of the thread over to each. If there is an important bit I have missed please copy it over.

There were only 66 votes on the poll so nothing is that broken.

Please stop posting on this thread and post on the new ones.