Trial any proposed rules changes at a competiton?

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:17 am

If a change was proposed to the set up rules (for example, allowing the side without initiative to have first choice of terrain) as has been discussed in many threads to do with LH and 'is FoG broken', and I repeat IF, would it make sense for it to be trialled at a competiton, provided that it is advertised well in advance that the rules would be changed that way? I would suggest a UK comp just so that the rules authors could attend and see what difference it makes to armies chosen and if it does rectify any percieved inbalance.

I do understand that we are probably talking later 2010, so that all the armie lists have come out and had a chance to have a good airing so we can see how the balance works from all the armies on offer.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:29 am

I can't imagine any changes to FoG whenever they might happen would not be thoroughly tested.

There is still a long way to go before all the lists are out and a lot of analysis to be done before anything is considered as imbalanced IMO.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:33 am

James, don't disagree with any of that.

I do want to emphasise the word IF in my original post.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:39 am

timmy1 wrote:James, don't disagree with any of that.

I do want to emphasise the word IF in my original post.

I understand the if.

Before the rules were published I played in or umpired at least half a dozen tournaments and played getting on for 100 games. I suspect that tweaks would not get quite the same volume of testing but they would definitley not be made on a whim just because one of the authors lost a game

shall · Post by **shall** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:43 pm

Speaking as one iof said authors ...

I can't see anything much to change for some time, but when we do rest assured it will get the same intense testing by the authors, followed by beta testers, followed by acid-testing in some mini tournaments as before.

We are keeping a record of areas of interest for the future so keep the discussion coming. Having lived through the development from blank sheets of paper, and playing 100s of test games, Terry Richard and I have a pretty good sense of how ideas raised would affect the game including side effects. Silence doesn't mean discussions haven't been noted for futur possibilities.

Si

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:05 pm

timmy1 wrote:any percieved inbalance.

If the original rules were tested for a long time both by Beta testers and at Comps were is the percieved imbalance that was'nt picked up by the said testers and authors.
Dave

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:37 pm

Dave, I don't see any imbalance but there is a quite widely held view that the initiative and terrain system favours steppe armies (and recent ideas that LH may be too strong). I don't agree that there is this sort of imbalance.

I do think that there is a problem with recreating battles where one side is almost exclusively Undrilled MF but I don't see it as an imbalance that requires a rules change, at this stage. If this turns out to be the only major historical flaw in a set of rules with such a wide scope, then I can live with that.

I do think that some of the core team have been surprised by the 19 BG drilled MF success as that did not seem to come out in playtesting but that is the only major surprise so far. If it was an imbalance that produced a killer army, I would expect to see riots of wargamers demanding the right to use large numbers of small BG in comps. Not seen reports of that, just yet. I have seen people complaining that Graham is too good but that is not limited to FoG.

Hope that makes my position clear. I did try as hard as I could to emphasise the IF.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:44 pm

timmy1 wrote:I do think that some of the core team have been surprised by the 19 BG drilled MF success as that did not seem to come out in playtesting but that is the only major surprise so far.

We have still to see anyone other than Graham Evans do really well in a tournament with it although Keith did pretty well when the army had its first outing at Britcon. I am still far from convinced that anyone other than a VERY good player will do that well with the army.

We have people complaining that MF are too bad in the steppes and LH are too powerful and knights are the dogs dodahs as well as poor pike being overpowered.

Then we have people saying that armies of average troops are rubbish and you have to have superiors to win comps (well not that I have noticed) and that the Byzantine Skutatoi that only get 1/2 defensive spear and 1/2 bow are pants (not at Usk they weren't) etc.

There are people on this forum who seem to think that certain things are unbalanced but for every person who thinks troop type A is unbalanced there will be one who thinks it's B, another C and so on.

I am really dissapointed that I haven't found a list where I can use poor drilled protected lancers the way I would like to because I happen to think that they are a bargain if you use them correctly.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:50 pm

James, you wrote

'
I am really disappointed that I haven't found a list where I can use poor drilled protected lancers the way I would like to because I happen to think that they are a bargain if you use them correctly.
'

Sounds like you will have to write the list that has them. I am sure that there is some obscure text on Uighars that suggest that once they fought with hastily raised lancers (and if there is not you could forge one as there are enough wild speculations in that field). You can put that in lost scrolls...

Regards
Tim

BillMc · Post by **BillMc** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:50 pm

"poor drilled protected lancers"

That would be nice.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:46 pm

timmy1 wrote:Dave, I don't see any imbalance but there is a quite widely held view that the initiative and terrain system favours steppe armies (and recent ideas that LH may be too strong). I don't agree that there is this sort of imbalance.

Hi There

At the moment the above view is held by those I feel who have foot armies and to say its a widely held believe maybe to be stretch things a little. Those that want a change see the LH charging around the table shooting and evading like light horse do.
I feel that this rule set for once allows light horse to be used like light horse would be used, I have both foot and horse armies and if I face a steppe army which i have in the past I use tactices to deal with them what I don't do is try to change the rules to make it harder for them to act like Light horse. Where would we stop if you restrict the LH what about Knights or Roman Infantry I find them to strong will we change them as well. I feel that the rules work as they are if you start changing one thing it will effect other parts.
Not having a go at anyone here but how long have these rules been out not long enough to be changing them allready I think.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:46 pm

hammy wrote:I am really dissapointed that I haven't found a list where I can use poor drilled protected lancers the way I would like to because I happen to think that they are a bargain if you use them correctly.

Why not Post-Latin Conquest Byzantine?

Mind you, I think the Average Protected lancers in the Free Company list are quite interesting. AND the army can be a swarm of BGs of 4 non-shock HF, Drilled, Average, HW at 40 points a go + some 6s of longbowmen. Ought to give the swarm Romans a run for their money.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:49 pm

Richard - I agree, the post Latin conquest Byz does have some interesting toys.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:51 pm

BillMc wrote:"poor drilled protected lancers"

That would be nice.

Average Protected Lancers in some arab armies

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:59 pm

There is always a dichotomy between "hard" armies and "soft" armies.

Those with hard armies sometimes get very frustrated when the soft armies refuse to stand still to be squashed like bugs. How unsporting! What cowards! Come back and fight like men!

They seem to forget that they are being equally unsporting by taking troops that the other army has no likely chance of defeating frontally.

No doubt the Crusaders felt equally frustrated, as did most rulers who tried to invade Skythia. This is historical - it does not mean the rules are wrong. If you cannot cope with the frustration of fighting a "soft" army with your ubermensch, don't take ubermensch to a tournament. (Or pick the "Storm of Arrows" theme which lacks any "soft" armies apart from the very unsuper Later Granadines).

However, try fighting a "soft"/"hard" battle from the "soft" side (against a competent opponent) and you will get an entirely different perspective and a different sort of frustration. Retreating steadily away from enemy troops without causing any damage is extremely frustrating. And believe me, it is no pleasure at all to have one's troops forced to evade off the table having achieved nothing, even if you do only lose 1 AP per BG.

Personally, I like "soft" armies, not because they are better, but because I personally find them more interesting and fun to play. Neverthless, I abandoned my Skythian army for the Immortal Fire period after a few practice games, because I found playing with it against massed pike armies too frustrating.

Overall the game needs a mix of "hard" and "soft" armies, and each has its pro and cons. Take away the threat of being skirmished out of the game (or defeated by) "soft" armies and pretty soon all you will see in open tournaments is Later Swiss.

Vive la difference!

(Of course, the canny players have spotted that, generally speaking, the armies that do best in tournaments are neither "hard" nor "soft" but have a wel-coordinated mix of hard and soft troops).

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:41 pm

david53 wrote:
BillMc wrote:"poor drilled protected lancers"

That would be nice.

Average Protected Lancers in some arab armies

Like wot the boy Porter used at Usk - http://www.madaxeman.com/reports/godendag_2009_1.php

However, they are not drilled and that is quite a difference.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:10 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
However, try fighting a "soft"/"hard" battle from the "soft" side (against a competent opponent) and you will get an entirely different perspective and a different sort of frustration. Retreating steadily away from enemy troops without causing any damage is extremely frustrating. And believe me, it is no pleasure at all to have one's troops forced to evade off the table having achieved nothing, even if you do only lose 1 AP per BG.

Agree with you there, a good player playing against my not so super LH can push you off table or trap you with Medium foot against terrian both of which has happened to me in the past.
But I will stick to a shooty army cause I think they are fun to play. For me they arn't a comp winner but thats down to my playing ability, but they do give me a lot of fun playing even if facing knights who in the end push me of the end of the world.
Dave

david53 · Post by **david53** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:12 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
david53 wrote:
BillMc wrote:"poor drilled protected lancers"

That would be nice.

Average Protected Lancers in some arab armies
Like wot the boy Porter used at Usk - http://www.madaxeman.com/reports/godendag_2009_1.php

However, they are not drilled and that is quite a difference.

Not being that experienced only difference is being able to expand and move is that right!

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:24 pm

david53 wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:
david53 wrote:
Average Protected Lancers in some arab armies
Like wot the boy Porter used at Usk - http://www.madaxeman.com/reports/godendag_2009_1.php

However, they are not drilled and that is quite a difference.
Not being that experienced only difference is being able to expand and move is that right!

Almost.

The critical difference for most Cavalry is that undrilled have to take a CMT to expand without moving. Failing this can be disastrous if they are trying to switch to "evade mode" prior to being charged. This, of course, is not an issue for lancers - but it could be important to avoid enemy shooting at them at a POA.

Also the CMT to turn 90 degrees and move is requires an 8 rather than a 7. This can also make a significant difference.

Also the CMT not to charge without orders requires an 8 rather than a 7.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:10 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
hammy wrote:I am really dissapointed that I haven't found a list where I can use poor drilled protected lancers the way I would like to because I happen to think that they are a bargain if you use them correctly.
Why not Post-Latin Conquest Byzantine?

After Usk I felt that some at least of our average armoured lancers would have been just as good if they were poor protected. While there are Byzantine lists with poor protected lancers the other troops in the army don't quite fit with the plan I initially had in mind. I am still convinced that there is something there with the troop type, just not what I had hoped for post Usk.

At 8 points a base and 32 for a BG of 4 they do look to be very good value for the points if you use them right.

Trial any proposed rules changes at a competiton?

Trial any proposed rules changes at a competiton?

Re: Trial any proposed rules changes at a competiton?