Slitherine

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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!!

madcam2us wrote:Oooo.

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

thoughts?

Madcam.