Showing disruption in a multi BG combat can be unclear and others have expressed an intent to use markers to represent cohesion states.
Having run through some different combat situations with different formations can I suggest the following simple alternative for your consideration?
Disrupted - turn one base to the rear.
Fragmented - turn two bases to the rear
Broken - turn all bases to the rear and fan them out.
Pete
Cohesion States
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
Pete
Thanks for the ideas. The only issue with that might be that its easy to turn 1 base round by accident so we stuck to a minimum of 2. On the other hand its very clearcut for most units and people won't make the mistake often - especially if it matters
.
Any other great ideas. We'll kick those around at our next team discussion.
Si
Thanks for the ideas. The only issue with that might be that its easy to turn 1 base round by accident so we stuck to a minimum of 2. On the other hand its very clearcut for most units and people won't make the mistake often - especially if it matters
. Any other great ideas. We'll kick those around at our next team discussion.
Si
Even so, it is hard to represent a disrupted unit that has been attacked in the rear.
And with the current system a disrupted unit of 4 LH in a line is impossible to tell which direction they are actually facing.
Problem is I really like the idea of using the figures to represent their cohesion state. It just seems so much "better" and accessible to the casual observer than using silly little markers.
Still I just don't see a practical alternative. We've certainly abandoned using elements and are using beads for these reasons.
And with the current system a disrupted unit of 4 LH in a line is impossible to tell which direction they are actually facing.
Problem is I really like the idea of using the figures to represent their cohesion state. It just seems so much "better" and accessible to the casual observer than using silly little markers.
Still I just don't see a practical alternative. We've certainly abandoned using elements and are using beads for these reasons.
Yes good to get different views. To be honest the authors are quite divided on it. Wish we could think of an all-emcompassing solution.....There are some situations you cannot handle using the figures - say 5% of situations. Whether that means go for counters as 5% is a big number, or don't because 5% is small number is a bit hard to say.
I think this is one where we will poll the players late in the day once there is a good base of experience out there. Maybe an "as you like it" approach is best?
Any other bright ideas anyone. It would be great to keep counters off the tabletop if possible.
Si
I think this is one where we will poll the players late in the day once there is a good base of experience out there. Maybe an "as you like it" approach is best?
Any other bright ideas anyone. It would be great to keep counters off the tabletop if possible.
Si
-
IainMcNeil
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am
Basically it comes down to this:
* Figures are used to show cohesion states
* Counters are used to show cohesion states
Counters would look awful if people use tiddly winks etc and there was no standard (liek in 7th Ed), so we would need to commission artwork and produce the counters in with the rules if we felt this was the right option.
What would you prefer and why? I know what I prefer but will save that for later!
* Figures are used to show cohesion states
* Counters are used to show cohesion states
Counters would look awful if people use tiddly winks etc and there was no standard (liek in 7th Ed), so we would need to commission artwork and produce the counters in with the rules if we felt this was the right option.
What would you prefer and why? I know what I prefer but will save that for later!