Autobreak levels

[rogerg]

Change the autobreak levels from greater than x% to greater or equal to x%

The two main objective would be:
1) BG's of 4 superior bases would no longer be an almost exclusive choice for mounted. BG's of 6 bases for superior troops would become a realistic option.
2) Melees would be shorter and the result of impact more pronounced. (See the thread on armour PoA). The endurance of 4 base BG's of superior troops in melees appears too great. Such battle groups, if out manoeuvered and hit effectively in impact (i.e. by good tactical play), can often hold up in melee on the strength of combat and CT re-rolls for several rounds. I believe the re-rolls are enough to give superior troops the advantage over average and poor.

Further, by encouraging larger BG's, the swarm effect might be reduced. Elite troops would be more distinguished as the only ones fighting on at 50% losses.

[timmy1]

Variant, make Autobreak levels a number of bases remaining rather than %age.

Elite Autobreak at 2 or less bases remaining
Superior at 3 or less
Average at 5 or less
Poor at 7 or less.

Solves the swarm problem right away. Who is going to take armoured superior shooty cav in 4s now? Average LH in 4s would disappear.

Variant would be to make Elite break at 1 base or less - so Spartan kings bodyguard (can never remember the Greek term) and Theban Sacred Band as 2 base Elite BG become viable.

[philqw78]

The list books would have to be re-written. This is one of your sillier ideas Tim. You have obviously been at the Westons again.

Kataphractoi, Cat, superior, Dr, HA, Lance Swords, cost: lots; 2 bases per BG; 4 base Max

Place them on table and they rout immediately.

Of course you could buy the elite version and waste even more points.

Although what it does to elephants and scythed chariots may make it worth it for the Kats if it was an optional rule.

[timmy1]

V2, rewrite the books AND

Elite Autobreak at 1 or less bases remaining
Superior at 2 or less
Average at 3 or less
Poor at 4 or less.

[stecal]

I'd like to see the gamey % go away. just make it a chart. At the very least fix Break points so there is some advantage of taking 12 over 10 in an average BG

[timmy1]

Stephen

There are some very real advantages of 12 base average BGs aginst 10s. Not often would you want to do it but if you need to be 4 bases wide, a 12 base BG really does have the edge.

[philqw78]

I'd like to see the gamey % go away. just make it a chart. At the very least fix Break points so there is some advantage of taking 12 over 10 in an average BG

But some armies don't get this choice so they would be hamstrung before the game.



or should this read more armies would be hamstrung by their list?

[Ranimiro]

I think there is a change going in this direction in FoG-R. Correct me if i am mistaken.

[nikgaukroger]

I think there is a change going in this direction in FoG-R. Correct me if i am mistaken.

No change.

[lawrenceg]

I'd like to see the gamey % go away. just make it a chart. At the very least fix Break points so there is some advantage of taking 12 over 10 in an average BG

But some armies don't get this choice so they would be hamstrung before the game.



or should this read more armies would be hamstrung by their list?

I think the argument is that it is not worth paying 20% more points to have a 12 over a 10, and the change is needed so that players who choose a 12 are not hamstringing themselves.

I don't know if it is worth the points or not, but when I use a 12 I find I do feel hard done by that the 12 autobreaks on the same number of bases lost and the 1HP3B is the same number of hits.

[hammy]

I think the argument is that it is not worth paying 20% more points to have a 12 over a 10, and the change is needed so that players who choose a 12 are not hamstringing themselves.

I don't know if it is worth the points or not, but when I use a 12 I find I do feel hard done by that the 12 autobreaks on the same number of bases lost and the 1HP3B is the same number of hits.

To be honest if I have the choice between 10 and 12 I would always take the 10s. The marginal gain from 10 to 12 is tiny

If the HP3B rule was changed to HP2B then perhaps 12 would be viable but as things stand the benefit of a 12 is so small as to be almost worthless.

[shall]

We already have a strong thought stream in the vs 2.0 draft of ideas to drop the autobreak different between Sup and Ave. So it would become:

• Elites Autobreak on 1/2+1 so a 4 breaks on 3 down
  Aveage/Superior Autonkreak on 1/2 so all Sup and Ave 4 s break on 2 down now
  Poor Autobreak on 1/2-1

so large poors break on 5 (Bg of 12) but poor BG of 4 vases breaks on 1!

I rather like all the effects ths would create. A teryy idea. Thoughts? Also simple and no %ges involved.

Si

[timmy1]

Like it - brings the effectiveness of superior vs average closer to the existing points differential.

[DavidT]

• Elites Autobreak on 1/2+1 so a 4 breaks on 3 down
  Aveage/Superior Autonkreak on 1/2 so all Sup and Ave 4 s break on 2 down now
  Poor Autobreak on 1/2-1

so large poors break on 5 (Bg of 12) but poor BG of 4 vases breaks on 1!

I don't believe that this change for Superior/Average would reflect the current points costs well.
In my LRR army, I have the option to take Superior or Average legionaries. There are times when I will take Average as the extra numbers of BGs will make up for the fact that the BGs break on 2 losses. I can also take the cavalry as Superior protected or Average armoured for the same points cost. I have used both options depending on what I want to do with them as I believe that their worth is similar.
This change would make Superior troops as brittle as Average and so, in both the cases above, I would take the Average option every time. This means that the capability would not be reflective of the points which I believe it is at the moment.

[expendablecinc]

I think there is a change going in this direction in FoG-R. Correct me if i am mistaken.

No change.

The change in FogR is indirectly resolving Bg size shinanigins by having very little room to muck aroudn with Battgroup sizes - Sacrificing the art of list creation to skill on table.

[timmy1]

DavidT - in my experience very few players take Average when Superior is available - Superior are far better value as FoG:AM stands.

[timmy1]

expendable, the points in FoG:R make superior relatively more expensive than in FoG:AM

[DavidT]

DavidT - in my experience very few players take Average when Superior is available - Superior are far better value as FoG:AM stands.

For competition games where you could be playing a variety of armies of unknow type, particularly open competitions, I can definately see merit in taking superior over average in most cases. When playing friendly games or league games, where you know what your opponents army is then the choice is much more dependent upon what you may be facing. There have been many discussions regarding shooty cavalry armies on the forum and whether to take LH, Bw, Sw as superior or average and there have been people recommending both options - therefore this indicates to me that the points costs are about right for those troop types. I played in a recent Rise of Rome competition and took the early Republican Roman option with average armoured legions instead of the mid or late option with supeior legions. It was a tough choice but I decided that the eatra BGs made up for the brittleness of the troops. I played a number of practice games against better quality Roman armies and they were very close - if the superior Romans had been breaking on 2 base losses the same as my average legions, the games would have been easy walkovers for me.

DBM(M) has had a long history of trying to change the capabilities of troops to match the points costs and it has never really worked (putting the cart before the horse really). I would hate to see FoG doing the same as I believe many of the current values are pretty close to their true value, paticularly considering the limitations of the current system which only covers a range between 2 and 25 I think. This proposal would go the other way and, in my opinion, make superior too expensive (there are some points costs which would appear to be a bit off the mark compared to the effectiveness of the troops - e.g. average knights compared to superior, elephants, artillery and scythed chariots).

[shall]

DBM(M) has had a long history of trying to change the capabilities of troops to match the points costs and it has never really worked (putting the cart before the horse really). I would hate to see FoG doing the same as I believe many of the current values are pretty close to their true value, paticularly considering the limitations of the current system which only covers a range between 2 and 25 I think. This proposal would go the other way and, in my opinion, make superior too expensive (there are some points costs which would appear to be a bit off the mark compared to the effectiveness of the troops - e.g. average knights compared to superior, elephants, artillery and scythed chariots).

All three of us firmly remember this era and issue (and the mass buying of new figures for every value for money fashion trend) ..... so we shouldn't easily fall into that trap. But good to be reminded of it so forthrightly thank you.

Si

[rogerg]

Nice one Terry. The half +1, 0, -1 is an excellent idea.