cheesy rule

david53 · Post by **david53** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:11 am

durrati wrote:I did not say it is a weak arguement that to say what is written is what is meant.

I said I find it a weak arguement that if the rules allow an action it is then perfectly acceptable. Your example about MF moving 4mu clearly misses the point.

Yes, some people do seem to have such a burning desire to not lose a game of toy soldiers they are willing to behave like a twat, which yes they have the right to do, other people also have an equal right to point this out to them. Can anyone tell me who TCL is?

My experience is that such gamesmanship as you refer to it is rare(ish). My experience is that if I am in the rare postion of winning a game my opponent takes it with good grace, continues to play to a decent speed and shakes my hand and says 'good game' if I by some stroke of fortune I manage not to screw it up.

So in the example of moving through LF to gain an advantage, I would personally chose not to do this - someone previously described this as the Ghandi option, which puts it rather well I feel. If someone did this to me then I would have to make my own decisions on how to respond. If I felt that it was just an accident I would ignore it, if I felt that it was done to manufacture a couple of extra mu I would probably attempt to discuss it in a good natured manner and carry on playing. If it was used to get a BG of elephants through a wood, well, the rules allow it so I would not complain, even though there seems to be a large amount of er 'gamesmanship' involved. I would probably then chose to go to the toilet and get a cup of tea (these two actions being seperate mind), this may take me a rather large amount of time and it may mean that I spend very little time at the table with my opponent but the rules allow this so it is just as acceptable.

Of course, this may piss my opponents off and give them a very poor opinion of me. I would be comfortable with that though, so no harm done.

I agree with most of what your saying. Its nice to met some new people who you can have a friendly game I met quite a few at Britcon. BTW I might just do the get tea and go to toilet in some of my future games sounds like fun

just joking but i know what you mean.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:19 am

philqw78 wrote:But since I am such a cheese mechanic, or purveyor of cheesy comestibles, I will be taking an army to Roll Call with no light foot, +4 PBI, every time I win initiative I will select mountain terrain and deploy neither road nor river.

Another cunning plan no doubt, weres the camp going to be

david53 · Post by **david53** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:24 am

ravenflight wrote:
david53 wrote:Just being a pain Knights can't move through LF page 48 3rd bullet point says what can pass through Knights arn't there.
I'm quite pleased you pointed this out, as it proves my stance that I'm not a cheese player so wasn't fully aware of the interprentration rules... but the same issue can be bought up about Cavalry and/or Elephants (or anything that can interpenetrate anything).

Did'nt know you were a chessy player just thought Phil was the only one on here

For these to be exceptions ie Knights and Cats the rules writers must have covered the interpentration and understood the idea. To me its not a broken rule set, if after x amount of years we have this as the major broken item FOG ain't that bad.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:29 am

david53 wrote: Another cunning plan no doubt, where's the camp going to be

On a moutain

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:41 am

durrati wrote: Sorry, I don't understand, what is so wrong about using roads, rivers or light foot? I have at no point ever seen or heard anyone, on this forum or elsewhere, suggest that to do so is in anyway out of order.

That's what this thread is all about. If I pay for an IC and get the chance to use both a road and a river its cheesy. If my mounted pass through my LF and go further than their normal move its cheesy.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:42 am

batesmotel wrote:Remember that means no shooty light horse and no steppe terrain in the next competition as well. Gotta nip those Dave_R tendencies in the bud
Chris

Its very difficult to get +4 PBI with no LH. But I am only going to use mountain terrain.

OldenTired · Post by **OldenTired** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:00 am

philqw78 wrote:
durrati wrote: Sorry, I don't understand, what is so wrong about using roads, rivers or light foot? I have at no point ever seen or heard anyone, on this forum or elsewhere, suggest that to do so is in anyway out of order.
That's what this thread is all about. If I pay for an IC and get the chance to use both a road and a river its cheesy. If my mounted pass through my LF and go further than their normal move its cheesy.

it's worse than cheesy - they are dirty and/or sneaky exploits.

and IMHO exploiting small holes via rules-lawyering to achieve what you can't by decent generalship and smart deployment makes you an exploiter.

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:04 am

philqw78 wrote: If I pay for an IC and get the chance to use both a road and a river its cheesy.

I'm not sure - this may only apply to Dave Ruddock and/or anyone using lots of LH ?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:10 am

OldenTired wrote: it's worse than cheesy - they are dirty and/or sneaky exploits.

and IMHO exploiting small holes via rules-lawyering to achieve what you can't by decent generalship and smart deployment makes you an a***hat.

Did you write the rules? Could this not be a design feature so that horsey armies without steppes have a chance of getting fairly open terrain? And I have already stated that the LF rule is broken.

So (edited)

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:18 am

*** MODERATOR MODE ON ***

Gentleman, I appreciate that this discussion is getting heated but would everyone please refrain from what can be taken as personal insults.

*** MODERATOR MODE OFF ***

OldenTired · Post by **OldenTired** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:20 am

philqw78 wrote:Could this not be a design feature so that horsey armies without steppes have a chance of getting fairly open terrain?

\

actually i thought i was agreeing with you!

but now you mention it, there is a feature to ensure horse armies get steppes.

take steppes as the terrain type, and place a 16mu open space.

it's not rocket science man.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:24 am

Rather than slagging each other off a far more constructive use of electrons might be to come up with a way to 'solve' this issue.

I suspect that the reason that it was not fixed in the rules as published was partly that it is hard to come up with a clean fix for and partly that the issue only surfaced late in the playtesting process by which time significant rules change was unlikely.

Here is my suggestion:

When iterpenetrating in the movement phase only a BG is only placed on the far side of the BG it is interpenetrating if the front edge of the moving BG would reach the far side of the interpenetrated BG. In this case the moving BG is placed entirely on the far side of the interpenetrated BG. In any other case the moving BG is placed entirely on the near side.

stenic · Post by **stenic** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:40 am

hammy wrote:Here is my suggestion:

When iterpenetrating in the movement phase only a BG is only placed on the far side of the BG it is interpenetrating if the front edge of the moving BG would reach the far side of the interpenetrated BG. In this case the moving BG is placed entirely on the far side of the interpenetrated BG. In any other case the moving BG is placed entirely on the near side.

Eminently sensible and one event organisers can stipulate upfront due to its simplicity.

Steve P

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:43 am

Still doesn't stop a BG of cav moving 24cm and then the LF following it the same. I think the only cure is getting stuck in the middle, for any type of move. But that does become more complex and would therefore need very tight rules.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:48 am

OldenTired wrote:actually i thought i was agreeing with you!

but now you mention it, there is a feature to ensure horse armies get steppes.

take steppes as the terrain type, and place a 16mu open space.

it's not rocket science man.

It's hard to see who is agreeing with anybody in typeface.

But if the army you are using does not get Steppe you are in trouble. If use of road and river together are banned I will stop using Cav lancer armies unless they have steppe.

At least shooty armies can force the enemy out of the bad going by shooting at them. Lancers just get to stand and stare.

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:09 am

philqw78 wrote:Still doesn't stop a BG of cav moving 24cm and then the LF following it the same.

That's probably not significant an advantage to worry about, and it would also stop all the terrain-teleporting (where movement is probably seriously reduced) as well. Only a real sad cheezo would worry about gaining the extra few cms.

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:14 am

philqw78 wrote:But if the army you are using does not get Steppe you are in trouble. If use of road and river together are banned I will stop using Cav lancer armies unless they have steppe.

If to successfully use massed lancers you need a billiard table, the game is then totally broken. And if a lancer army cant regularly find a way to create a 10-12+ element wide gap to shove all its lancers down at high speed in pretty much all terrain picks, the terrain rules are definitely broken.

Time for a new thread!!

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:20 pm

madaxeman wrote: If to successfully use massed lancers you need a billiard table, the game is then totally broken. And if a lancer army cant regularly find a way to create a 10-12+ element wide gap to shove all its lancers down at high speed in pretty much all terrain picks, the terrain rules are definitely broken.

Time for a new thread!!

If I didn't expect to meet armies with swarms of 4 base BG of Av Armd Drilled MF Lt Sp Sw I would be happy with a 10-12 base wide gap.

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:22 pm

Oooo.

Good segway... Romans are broken, armor is too good and drilled troops move to far.....

thoughts?

Madcam.

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:43 pm

madcam2us wrote:Oooo.

Good segway... Romans are broken, armor is too good and drilled troops move to far.....

thoughts?

Madcam.

Fully agree. Armour as a tiebreaker POA, and no turn and move for drilled troops gets my vote.

And force all Romans to be in 6's.

OK, then there would be almost no variation between any army in any of the rulebooks, but hey, that's an inevitable casualty of playability and game balance.