AP's for Evading Off-Table

AlanCutner · Post by **AlanCutner** » Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:02 pm

Whilst I understand the strategic argument for aarding just 1AP for a BG evading off-table, I don't believe this is a good game mechanism. Its hard enough to catch light horsey armies. A BG evading off-table should be a lost BG, and count 2AP.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:25 pm

I do believe a lot, nay most, agree with this

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:20 pm

Yep it is the world saying do this versus Ruddock saying don't.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Sep 04, 2010 9:34 pm

And me saying 'meh'

I don't have a problem with the idea but I don't think it will make that big a difference to the way the type of game it is supposed to change plays out.

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:42 pm

Don't get me wrong I dislike LH armies as much as the next but realistically you get the 1 AP and you are able to bring your attacking BG back into the frey. If you get 2 AP's then you should have to follow them off the board albeit with no AP lost for doing so.
Gino
SMAC

Skullzgrinda · Post by **Skullzgrinda** » Sun Sep 05, 2010 5:41 pm

kal5056 wrote:Don't get me wrong I dislike LH armies as much as the next but realistically you get the 1 AP and you are able to bring your attacking BG back into the frey. If you get 2 AP's then you should have to follow them off the board albeit with no AP lost for doing so.
Gino
SMAC

WRG 7th had a mechanism along those lines. Units which went off board had a chance to re-enter, a bit like the flank march in FoG.

For our purposes, a 2 AP loss for evaders with a CMT test on pursuers to halt and NOT pursue off the board would be justified, IMO. If pursuers did not halt, pursuers lose 1 AP.

Just my 2 cents, probably as overpriced as many other suggestions on the topic.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sun Sep 05, 2010 6:49 pm

kal5056 wrote:Don't get me wrong I dislike LH armies
SMAC

Why? did'nt the mongols rule a empire bigger than the Roman one, did'nt they fight more different enemies than any other empire and for the most part defeat them. Now whats not to like about an army made up of them.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sun Sep 05, 2010 6:56 pm

Pardon my ignorance - how many BGs of LH have ACTUALLY evaded off table in real games. I know the theory but I have only seen it done once. Usually the wriggley eels that they are shoot off in another direction and end up somewhere that causes me pain!

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:19 pm

It happens mainly off their own base edge, LF pprobably more often than LH.

Therefore a different rule change could be used. Don't allow them to avoid table edge in an evade. But keep it as 1AP loss.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:22 pm

kal5056 wrote:Don't get me wrong I dislike LH armies as much as the next but realistically you get the 1 AP and you are able to bring your attacking BG back into the frey. If you get 2 AP's then you should have to follow them off the board albeit with no AP lost for doing so.
Gino
SMAC

Bringing your attacking BG back in to the game generally takes at least 2 of your own moves. Turn 180 then move. All this time it is suffering a minus to CT as it is withing 6 MU of the table edge, and probably getting shot by other skirmishers who will just be chased off table for little loss. (if the battle troops survive the shooting)

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:23 pm

Or change the threatened flank definition so that their own baseline is not counted friendly for troops that can evade... and does not count against the unit that has reached the position to be castled (sorry wrong game)

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:19 am

Evading off table is not too different to being routed. If your enemy is driven from the battlefield it should be 2 AP.
Apart from anything else, this is a cleaner mechanism. It avoids the odd situation where the table edge changes the tactics and you have to try and shoot skirmishers to breaking to get two points rather than charging at them for one point.

IanB3406 · Post by **IanB3406** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:23 pm

Somebody suggested making them worth 2AP if the baggage is sacked....maybe on Madaxeman's web page. I think that is a nice / simple solution....

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:27 pm

IanB3406 wrote:Somebody suggested making them worth 2AP if the baggage is sacked....maybe on Madaxeman's web page. I think that is a nice / simple solution....

But more thought required, although less than is required now.

"Well they evaded off, they routed, and I can't remember what they did." Being a problem, albeit minor, now.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:02 pm

Again changes the game from stateless to having a state. Much easier to be 2APs for evading off table.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:00 pm

I for one can not see any need for a change.

I have played a large number of games more than some on here.

In all them games less than the number on one hand have I had to evade of the table with any BG and at most I have evaded 2 BG in one game. .

What is the problum here please explain cause I have'nt seen the massive arguments around the tables I have been near.

AP's for Evading Off-Table

AP's for Evading Off-Table

Re: AP's for Evading Off-Table