The Agema were on the bench, but still Alex lost!

verybizzyb · Post by **verybizzyb** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:22 pm

Everyone who played DBM surely remembers leaving a base at an angle behind another base and recoiling to just touch it thue preventing the recoil and both elements being destroyed as a result. The angled element blocking a recoil is a game mechanism much like the intercept charge.

I'm sorry but I don't accept that offering an example of a 'dubious' mechanism in another set of rules can justify an equally dubious mechanism in these rules. FoG must stand or fall on it's own merits and not by comparing it's errors with those of DBM or any other set. I think the danger of adopting this kind of argument may be reflected in most people in my club wanting nothing to do with DBM because of the dreaded mm maneouvres that went on.

Personally I would far rather have a black and white intercept charge rule like we do than have to get the dividers out and measure everything in fractions of a move. Not stepping forwards is perhaps the only slight odd thing but it is in the rules so lets play the game that way for a while and see how often this issue crops up.

I cannot understand why this 'pro rata' movement keeps coming up as I have NEVER proposed it. Indeed I believe that the only mention I have made of it was to state that for me it was a non-starter. In this situation I believe the inability of the Companions not to step forward is far more than 'slightly odd' but appreciate others may feel otherwise. I would also challenge whether the frequency with which a solvable problem occurred should be the criterion for change.

The long and the short of it is that the companions in this game were in an untennable possition. I suspect that whatevere they did they would be charged in the flank by either the bow or one or other cavalry BG. Perhaps not exactly when they did but it would have happened eventually. When players are more experienced with the game they will see this kind of posstion developing and react accordingly.

Again I have maintained throughout my argument that the Companions are and should be doomed. I also don't have any problem with the Indian cavalry hitting them in the flank and (if they were able to do so) the bows joining in to give them a good hiding! My problem is quite simply that the Companions are totally paralysed throughout the procedure. This fact and only this fact has been my point throughout. It just lacks credibility when the simple step-forward procedure would resolve it.

When this debate opened I simply offered the opinion that the way the rules resolved the situation was silly. It seems to me that there is more than a little agreement on this from others, some apparently involved in the production of the rules. Whilst I am not naive enough to think that the rules are going to be immediately changed, as this would obviously cause severe embarrassment for such a newly produced set, I remain hopeful that the writers may pay attention to this when a 2nd edition eventually appears.

verybizzyb · Post by **verybizzyb** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:37 pm

However, what strikes me is that this sort of thing could well become the sort of maneuver that 'ruthless' veterans pull on unsuspecting novices. On the one hand you can justify it as the sort of 'tough love' that such people need while they learn the ropes. On the other it could easily become the something that turns new comers off the rules - the comparison with blocking recoils in DBM being very apt in this case.

It's a fine line that the design team are going to have to tread if they want the system to retain its intuitive 'user friendly' reputation.

Totally agree Benny. I think it was Nik who stated that this wasn't a 'rule-breaker' as yet and I agree with him. However, the potential for drawing comparisons with DBM 'cunning-wheezes' are there, as when I highlighted this situation at my club the reaction from several former DBM players was that of 'here we go again'. I subsequently found myself in the rather strange position of defending the rules that I was criticising!

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:46 pm

verybizzyb wrote:
Personally I would far rather have a black and white intercept charge rule like we do than have to get the dividers out and measure everything in fractions of a move. Not stepping forwards is perhaps the only slight odd thing but it is in the rules so lets play the game that way for a while and see how often this issue crops up.
I cannot understand why this 'pro rata' movement keeps coming up as I have NEVER proposed it. Indeed I believe that the only mention I have made of it was to state that for me it was a non-starter. In this situation I believe the inability of the Companions not to step forward is far more than 'slightly odd' but appreciate others may feel otherwise. I would also challenge whether the frequency with which a solvable problem occurred should be the criterion for change.

How would you propose 'solving' this?

As things stand the intercept rules are black and white. Either you can or can't intercept and if you intercept as a flank charge that is it, everything stops there. As far as I can see any attempt to modify this is more than likely to get into relative speeds of movement and distances to travel hence the pro rata comment.

I accept that under certain circumstances a flank or rear intercept charge looks odd, I was just trying to say that it is no more odd than many mechnisms in other rules and that fixing this oddness is far from trivial and would more likely than not just introduce more and different oddness.

The only times such an intercept will happen are:
* If the intecepted player forgets the intercept possibility or for some reason wants to be intercepted
* If the intercepted troops are shock mounted
* If the intercepted troops are shock foot and are intercepted by other foot

Most of the time there are other options for the BG in trouble. I suspect that had the agema wanted to and made a CT there was a move that they could have made by turning 90 and withdrawing from one of the Indian BGs that would have meant that they couldn't even be flank charged in their move.

I think that in the last 15 or so games I have played this has happened once and it was because I had worked to setup such a charge against a mounted BG that had broken off one of my foot BGs that had remained steady. There have been a couple of other occasions where I have allowed my opponents to reconsider their charges as they would have been charged in the flank.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:51 pm

verybizzyb wrote:
However, what strikes me is that this sort of thing could well become the sort of maneuver that 'ruthless' veterans pull on unsuspecting novices. On the one hand you can justify it as the sort of 'tough love' that such people need while they learn the ropes. On the other it could easily become the something that turns new comers off the rules - the comparison with blocking recoils in DBM being very apt in this case.

It's a fine line that the design team are going to have to tread if they want the system to retain its intuitive 'user friendly' reputation.
Totally agree Benny. I think it was Nik who stated that this wasn't a 'rule-breaker' as yet and I agree with him. However, the potential for drawing comparisons with DBM 'cunning-wheezes' are there, as when I highlighted this situation at my club the reaction from several former DBM players was that of 'here we go again'. I subsequently found myself in the rather strange position of defending the rules that I was criticising!

I agree that the intercept rule is probably the most exploitable rule for the ruthless and perhaps me not being ruthelss enough could be the reason that it has occured so infrequently. Personally I get no fun out of watching an opponent get messed around too much by the rules and I am alway happy for him to reconsider a move that has big consequences. After a while and multiple intances of the "are you sure" comment I have been know to just take advantage but it is a touch ungentlemanly.

When explaining the principles of FoG to players I generally mention that the evade and intercept rules are the ones that new players most need to get their heads round as if you don't know them they can bite you.

verybizzyb · Post by **verybizzyb** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:15 am

I think I've already stated (possibly several times) that I believe a more realistic solution would be to allow the Companions to step forward to contact, in the same way as they would be allowed to do if the Indian cavalry (on the flank) had carried out a blocking intercept charge. In that way the Companions are punished for being isolated and the Indians rewarded for their cunning flank attack but it would all appear much more realistic than the Companions frozen in situ. I cannot see this straying from being 'black and white' (as you put it) as the relevant rules already exist.

I have no intention of playing in competitions so this is a house-rule I will adopt...you never know it may even overcome the objections of the former DBM players I am trying (without success to date) to get to play FoG.

I would also like to say (a closing statement M'Lord?) that I like the look of FoG and will certainly give it a try (when I can find an opponent!). If I thought the overall rules system unworthy then I would not have wasted my time arguing a point, as I wouldn't be playing the rules anyway. I am not someone who is looking to criticize for it's own sake, though I appreciate that appears the case with some postings I have read.

WhiteKnight · Post by **WhiteKnight** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:32 am

All interesting points!

Just to go back to the original situation, though...

Those Companion horse had gotten into a near impossible position, with a BG to their front pinning them and the BGs to their flank. To try to get out of that situation, did they have a legitimate move? I realise the Cav BG to their flank was not pinning them as it was beyond 2MU, not sure about the foot? If the foot were doing so, in terms of the rules on p 74, could the Companions have taken a CT and if successful, turned 90 and moved off their 5MU?
Could they have made the same move as above if the foot were pinning them?

Martin

jdm · Post by **jdm** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:32 am

Please don't worry about expressing your views, thats what the forum is all about. The comments and opinions throughout the development period and beyond are very helpful to us and we are listening. So keep the feed back coming.

Regards
JDM

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:42 am

hammy wrote:
How would you propose 'solving' this?

As things stand the intercept rules are black and white. Either you can or can't intercept and if you intercept as a flank charge that is it, everything stops there. As far as I can see any attempt to modify this is more than likely to get into relative speeds of movement and distances to travel hence the pro rata comment.

I don't see that there is any need to get into pro-rata moves if this rule were ever changed - the idea that you could step forward even if intercepted by a flank/rear charge as already suggested shows that.

Of course if stepping forward were allowed Si would have just positioned the front BG 2MU + a gnats todger in front so that there could be no stepping forward and so the situation would still have existed

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:47 am

WhiteKnight wrote:All interesting points!

Just to go back to the original situation, though...

Those Companion horse had gotten into a near impossible position, with a BG to their front pinning them and the BGs to their flank. To try to get out of that situation, did they have a legitimate move? I realise the Cav BG to their flank was not pinning them as it was beyond 2MU, not sure about the foot? If the foot were doing so, in terms of the rules on p 74, could the Companions have taken a CT and if successful, turned 90 and moved off their 5MU?
Could they have made the same move as above if the foot were pinning them?

Martin

Only if after their move they had some part of their BG still in front of which ever pinning BG they were responding to.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:03 am

Of course if stepping forward were allowed Si would have just positioned the front BG 2MU + a gnats todger in front so that there could be no stepping forward and so the situation would still have existed

There are other points for consideration if you allow the Companians to step forward - what if the BG could normally evade a charge? Since the charge is cancelled, they would be unable to evade.

Which to my mind causes more problems than it solves. Just to keep the debate going

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:19 am

Looking at the photo and bearing in mind that the companions are in the restricted area of both the cavalry and the archers then I can't see any reason why they could not have chosen to respond to the restricted zone of the archers and if they pass a CMT then turn 90 to their left and wheel a full move towards the cavalry facing them. A 5 MU wheel would allow the companions to line up with the cavalry to their front.

The following turn would probably see a repeat of the situation but it would at least have prolonged the agony.

davem · Post by **davem** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:06 am

hammy wrote:Looking at the photo and bearing in mind that the companions are in the restricted area of both the cavalry and the archers then I can't see any reason why they could not have chosen to respond to the restricted zone of the archers and if they pass a CMT then turn 90 to their left and wheel a full move towards the cavalry facing them. A 5 MU wheel would allow the companions to line up with the cavalry to their front.

The following turn would probably see a repeat of the situation but it would at least have prolonged the agony.

I had said on another thread that I wouldn't post anymore on this, but as the owner of the soon to be deceased Companions a little more explanation may aid this debate.

The photo shows the situation after the interception occurs. None of Simon's BG's were within 2 MU of me before this. All the BG's have moved to the positions shown in Simon's turn and my only "movement" was to declare the charge, subsequently cancelled by the intercept.
It did not occur to me to turn 90 degrees to my left as the table edge was pretty close.

OK, my Companions were doomed and I put them there. I have no problem with them being at severe disadvantages. The rule was "in black and white" so I'm not seeking a clarification. I have at no time advocated pro-rata movement.

All I'm really saying is this will occur in games where beginners get into similar bad positions and if my own feelings are any guide, will feel exploited. The whole situation looks silly and no amount of "rationalising" will alleviate this.

I rather pleased this has generated so much debate, most of it positive and I'm big enough to take the "you're a muppet for putting them there" comments:-)

I'm sorry again, but I firmly believe this is a situation that does need a fix as it is exactly the sort of thing that gets labeled "Cheese" in other rule sets (as it seems in vogue to quote other rule sets whilst rationalising).

Regards

Dave M

Maniakes · Post by **Maniakes** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:17 am

I think it's useful to look at this situation from the Indian player's side. Having got two units in position on a single enemy, with one of them on the enemies flank, just what are you meant to do next? How do you spring the trap you have laid? My answer would be that your unit to the front should demonstrate in front of the enemy to distract them from manouevering out of the situation (get in their face, basically) while the other moves up on the flank. You're going for a simultaneous charge but if your victim shows signs of charging first then your flanking unit should intervene. It seems to me that this is what happened on the table and that it feels like a historically plausible outcome.
The only argument I can see on the other side is that the distances on the table make it look a little odd. I think this is an artefact of the alternate movement system and that as long as everyone is in charge distance you should put more weight on the positions of troops than on distances.
There is one other issue - that of game balance. FOG has a wider range of troop qualities than some other rules - which is a good thing but has it's own dangers, one of which that high quality troops might dominate the game (like the sort of WWII rules where everyone wants to field only King Tigers!). The antidote to this lies in things like the flanking and intercept rules and if you start messing with them there is a danger that you distort the game balance. If elite units can always just bull foward into contact then pretty soon everyone will be fielding nothing but Teutonic Knights!
So I'm pleased, both on historical plausibility and game balance grounds, that there are no proposals to change the rules.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:17 am

davem wrote:It did not occur to me to turn 90 degrees to my left as the table edge was pretty close.

I am not trying to say that you should have done that just that from the photo it looks like an option.

Thinking about it the turn 90 and move is another of the things that new players need to be made aware of.

That means new players who want to improve should look to study intercept charges, evades and the maneuver table, specifically turn 90 and move.

verybizzyb · Post by **verybizzyb** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:28 pm

I think it's useful to look at this situation from the Indian player's side. Having got two units in position on a single enemy, with one of them on the enemies flank, just what are you meant to do next? How do you spring the trap you have laid? My answer would be that your unit to the front should demonstrate in front of the enemy to distract them from manouevering out of the situation (get in their face, basically) while the other moves up on the flank. You're going for a simultaneous charge but if your victim shows signs of charging first then your flanking unit should intervene. It seems to me that this is what happened on the table and that it feels like a historically plausible outcome

.

Sorry but the only way this situation would have any 'historically plausible outcome' would be if the demonstrating unit employed mass hypnotism...and I can't find the POA's for that in the rulebook...

The only argument I can see on the other side is that the distances on the table make it look a little odd.

I applaud your sense of understatement.

I think this is an artefact of the alternate movement system and that as long as everyone is in charge distance you should put more weight on the positions of troops than on distances.

I don't think the two can be divorced if you want to achieve a reasonable degree of realism.

There is one other issue - that of game balance. FOG has a wider range of troop qualities than some other rules - which is a good thing but has it's own dangers, one of which that high quality troops might dominate the game (like the sort of WWII rules where everyone wants to field only King Tigers!). The antidote to this lies in things like the flanking and intercept rules and if you start messing with them there is a danger that you distort the game balance. If elite units can always just bull foward into contact then pretty soon everyone will be fielding nothing but Teutonic Knights!
So I'm pleased, both on historical plausibility and game balance grounds, that there are no proposals to change the rules.

I thought that the use of a points system was developed to achieve 'balance' between the different training/armour/weaponry of the various troop types? I had no idea the intercept rules were intended to penalize the better quality troops. Perhaps the rule/army list writers would care to comment on this one?

I think i must have stated this several times already but clearly some people read only what they wish to see so I will say it again. From the outset of this debate I have stated that the companions are and should be doomed in this position. I have NEVER advocated any rulechange that would allow them to charge to glory rather than be slaughtered BUT I would just like them to be slaughtered in a more realistic manner than actually occurred. I regret that I didn't advocate that they should be equipped with Tigers (King or otherwise) as that is probably what they would have neede to escape!

anyway I'm off to paint up all those Teutonic Knights I've just purchased...

Maniakes · Post by **Maniakes** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:42 pm

verybizzyb wrote:
I have NEVER advocated any rulechange that would allow them to charge to glory rather than be slaughtered BUT I would just like them to be slaughtered in a more realistic manner than actually occurred. I regret that I didn't advocate that they should be equipped with Tigers (King or otherwise) as that is probably what they would have neede to escape!

anyway I'm off to paint up all those Teutonic Knights I've just purchased...

Sorry to rattle your cage so! I wasn't accusing you of anything - I just think all the suggestions for dealing with this sort of situation are likely to have worse outcomes than the existing rules - and most of them wil make flank positions less powerful and elite troops more powerful.

demigamer · Post by **demigamer** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:13 pm

The 'perception' of this situation looking silly and unhistorical is not to do with the interception at all, but in the Indian Cv BG moving so close to the Agema during the Indian maneuvre phase. THAT, to me, is the cause of this discussion.

I would like all here to consider the way Restricted Area (pg74) is applied in games.

At this point in time all this rule does is make BGs' stay in front of the enemy BG pinning it. Seems to me the first point of RA "Advance directly towards that enemy Battle Group" is the real culprit here. Last section of the second points sentence also assists the accused

"; advancing thereafter if it wishes to do so".

Does not RA (By its' very wording) evoke an image to how far away a pinned BG should remain from the enemy BG, unless charging it during the Impact Phase?

Coming back to the situation, if this was how the RA rule was actually applied, how would those involved have felt about the situation? Would that Intercept Charge now look 'silly'?

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:50 pm

Does not RA (By its' very wording) evoke an image to how far away a pinned BG should remain from the enemy BG, unless charging it during the Impact Phase?

No, because some troops ignore the restricted area.

For people not suggesting any rule changes there seems to be a lot of "rules changes" and "house rules" being suggested

I really can't see what the problem is. A BG approaches and is all intent on charging to the front when one person says "erm, I really think you had best take a look to the flank sir". At which point the whole unit stops, panics and then can't quite work out what to do next. Which is what happened.

It might look a bit strange, but not unduly so.

demigamer · Post by **demigamer** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:51 pm

dave_r wrote:
Does not RA (By its' very wording) evoke an image to how far away a pinned BG should remain from the enemy BG, unless charging it during the Impact Phase?
No, because some troops ignore the restricted area.

Only those listed on page 74 to my knowledge, unless I've missed something elsewhere in the rules. They are rather limited.

Surely this situation come up in playtesting? I do not recall it happening to me during beta games but lots of people playtested it worldwide.

Anyway, my intention was to point out a possible house rule mod for those inclined. Not to trumpet changing the book after it being around for five minutes!

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:34 pm

demigamer wrote:
Surely this situation come up in playtesting?

It may well have done (actually I'd be surprised if it did not), however, it is possible that when it did the players concerned did not consider it an issue. Maybe they were of the opinion that they'd screwed up and got what they deserved - it would certainly have been my view in the circumstance.