Move Over Baby....

MatthewP · Post by **MatthewP** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:31 pm

I have always found it slightly incongruous that skirmishers can prevent heavier troops from moving in the following circumstances;

Mounted breakoffs
Turns
Feeding bases into melee
Expansions

I wonder if they should be pushed aside or in the case of feeding bases into melee forced to engage in combat as they would if an overlap.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:38 pm

Although in the main I agree with you matt it would take a lot of very careful and wordy rule writing to legislate aginst.

MatthewP · Post by **MatthewP** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:42 pm

But we already have a similar rule for conforming. Just move them the minimum distance in any direction, choice up to the general of the skirmishers.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:45 pm

Could your own skirmishers be pushed out of the way the same? If so great. Charge between 2 skirmish groups in a column. Expand and still be able to break off.

MatthewP · Post by **MatthewP** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:59 pm

You obviously have a far more devious mind than me, but no enemy skirmishers only. Your own (hopefully) would not be in danger of getting chopped by their own heavy troops.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:06 pm

Seems a bit unfair if you fail a test not to charge and after impact your own lights are in the way of an expansion where the enemy overlap you.

MatthewP · Post by **MatthewP** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:22 pm

This would be own fault for not thinking ahead and not as unfair as being unable to feed a base into melee because of a couple of enemy light horse or loosing a cohesion level because an enemy light foot has his big toe in behind your extremely heavy knights.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:23 pm

MatthewP wrote:You obviously have a far more devious mind than me

Ah matt you have to learn that its all part of the game.....

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:32 pm

MatthewP wrote:This would be own fault for not thinking ahead and not as unfair as being unable to feed a base into melee because of a couple of enemy light horse or loosing a cohesion level because an enemy light foot has his big toe in behind your extremely heavy knights.

But that is as it stands now, and it is just as unfair to both sides. If it changes so I can move the enemy's skirmishers out of the way but not my own it becomes very odd.

If you cannot break off because enemy skirmishers are to your rear you have got it wrong. You charge in your own move, you move your own troops out of the way, then you break off if enemy foot are steady. If the enemy managed to get someone behind you whilst in your move they planned very well.

MatthewP · Post by **MatthewP** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:46 pm

Ah matt you have to learn that its all part of the game.....

Part of your game Dave. My game's all about chasing after skirmishers/medium foot while they pirouet around the battle field. By the time I've thought of doing something sneaky it usually too late.

MatthewP · Post by **MatthewP** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:48 pm

But that is as it stands now, and it is just as unfair to both sides. If it changes so I can move the enemy's skirmishers out of the way but not my own it becomes very odd.

Not odd. Enemy skirmishers would move away from your troops because they are in danger of death. Your own skirmishers are not worried about being chopped into pieces so the two are not comparable.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:00 pm

MatthewP wrote:Not odd. Enemy skirmishers would move away from your troops because they are in danger of death. Your own skirmishers are not worried about being chopped into pieces so the two are not comparable.

So people who want you dead can be pushed out of the way easily, but those who want to help cannot?

MatthewP · Post by **MatthewP** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:52 pm

No Enemy who are in loose order and only carrying a pointed stick, while you are fully armoured and carrying a big axe, would move away themselves. other wise you would kill them. Killing your own Light troops probably wouldnt go down well with your general.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:40 am

MatthewP wrote:No Enemy who are in loose order and only carrying a pointed stick, while you are fully armoured and carrying a big axe, would move away themselves. other wise you would kill them. Killing your own Light troops probably wouldnt go down well with your general.

Doing this killing whilst busy fighting someone else with a big axe to your front? Should you then count as fighting in 2 directions? Would they not try and kill you back? And one would have thought you could ask your own lights to move rather than kill them.

Also MF could push LH out of the way?

I am assuming you mean open/skirmish order rather than loose, which fits most mounted troops.

MatthewP · Post by **MatthewP** » Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:27 am

Doing this killing whilst busy fighting someone else with a big axe to your front? Should you then count as fighting in 2 directions? Would they not try and kill you back? And one would have thought you could ask your own lights to move rather than kill them.

The troops who expand from the back/side are not yet fighting. The enemy skirmishers would retreat before them because thats what skirmishers do when faced with heavier opposition. So no fighting in two directions.

Also MF could push LH out of the way?

Wht not. They are in closer order than skirmishers, probably with heavier armour and weoponry. Why wouldnt skirmishers retreat. Mounted or otherwise

I am assuming you mean open/skirmish order rather than loose, which fits most mounted troops.

Yes
Whose side are you on Skirmish Boy!

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:44 am

MatthewP wrote:Whose side are you on Skirmish Boy!

Cheese removal and anti-complication. I have a felling that this will bring in more unless written well

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:26 am

A simpler fix would be to allow break offs to include a base shift or dropping back a base to avoid troops in their path as with evades. It doesn't make sense that a BG can charge straight in, then conform, then can't break off because their path is blocked by the big toe of the guy at the end of the line of troops behind them.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:40 am

gozerius wrote:A simpler fix would be to allow break offs to include a base shift or dropping back a base to avoid troops in their path as with evades. It doesn't make sense that a BG can charge straight in, then conform, then can't break off because their path is blocked by the big toe of the guy at the end of the line of troops behind them.

I agree, I suspect that the perfect 'fix' is to do away with all conforming or at least to do away with compulsary conforms.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:21 pm

hammy wrote:
I agree, I suspect that the perfect 'fix' is to do away with all conforming or at least to do away with compulsary conforms.

As some of us have been saying since before v1.0.

Congratulations on seeing the light, Hammy.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:45 pm

lawrenceg wrote:
hammy wrote:
I agree, I suspect that the perfect 'fix' is to do away with all conforming or at least to do away with compulsary conforms.
As some of us have been saying since before v1.0.

Congratulations on seeing the light, Hammy.

I have no issues with not forcing conforms. They are simply a nice to have to some extent enforced by the fact out toys need to be on bases.