cheesy rule

[durrati]

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.

The thread is not about if you use LF it is cheesy - nobody imagines it is. If you then use that LF in a column to warp mounted through difficult terrain, then yes, I feel that is highly dubious.

The putting a road down the side of the table edge to stop any terrain being deployed, for me, counts as mildly off as I feel that taking minimal terrain and open means there will be little enough terrain on the table to make Cav armies more than viable with out using such a trick. Probably fall into the 'good natured banter' response that I mentioned above as it is hardly game breaking in the way a mounted warp has the clear potential to be.

All of this is my views on such things of course, which I am allowed and of course is all I can base my actions on.

[petedalby]

Another possible solution?

A BG that is interpenetrated may not move in the manouevre pahse. Similarly no BG may interpenetrate another BG that has moved in the manouevre phase.

It doesn't eliminate the problem entirely but it would take time and effort to engineer the teleports - hopefully enough to make it unworthwhile?

[dave_r]

Yeah - that was my suggestion made on one of the previous pages

[lawrenceg]

Another possible solution?

A BG that is interpenetrated may not move in the manouevre pahse. Similarly no BG may interpenetrate another BG that has moved in the manouevre phase.

It doesn't eliminate the problem entirely but it would take time and effort to engineer the teleports - hopefully enough to make it unworthwhile?

Makes quite a difference if you want to pull your LF back and move cavalry up in its place.

However, if you said :

In the manouevre phase, a BG cannot interpenetrate a BG which has already interpenetrated it.

Then you would stop mutual leapfrogging while leaving everything else unchanged.

It doesn't stop you using an LF road through terrain though. You could simply impose a "No leapfrogging through slowing terrain" rule to do that.

However, we'll have to make the best of what we have until the authors decide to change the rules.

[marioslaz]

I didn't read this thread for a day or so and when I came back I found you already started to insult. I hope you wait for me when you start the fight
I have a proposal for an amendment to the rules:
"If a BG interpenetrate another BG in a direction by which interpenetration distance is greater then interpenetrating BG movement allowance in terrain where interpenetration occurs interpenetration is forbidden unless interpenetration is a mandatory movement."

[philqw78]

"If a BG interpenetrate another BG in a direction by which interpenetration distance is greater then interpenetrating BG movement allowance in terrain where interpenetration occurs interpenetration is forbidden unless interpenetration is a mandatory movement."

I'm glad I didn't have to read that in Italian

[ravenflight]

A BG that is interpenetrated may not move in the manouevre pahse. Similarly no BG may interpenetrate another BG that has moved in the manouevre phase.

This isn't a bad suggestion, but I also suggest that you can't interpenetrate AT ALL in the first turn of the game.

My reason for this is I can see people using the warp move to use LF as a 'bridge' to redeploy their hitting force if they are outdeployed.

I.e. - "I'll put my lancer cavalry and elephants 'here' and my LF beside them, then if I'm really out-deployed I can move the entire formation to the other side of the table"

Sure, (according to my change) they could do it on the second turn, but at least they would then really be giving the initiative away.

Ian

[DavidT]

I have been reading this thread with interest. Unfortunately, in any rules system, it is impossible to cover all the areas where it is possible to do things which are either totally unrealistic or unhistorical. The rules writers can only do their best but it is only once the rules get thoroughly playtested in the real world that the problems with issues like this arise. I remember something similar being done to move mounted elements rapidly through difficult going in DBM.
The problem is aggrevated by the fact that troops are mounted on bases which are unrealistically deep compared to their frontage.
The rule as written stops the problem of BGs being intermixed when penetrating, however, there is currently a rule that allows this when LF are evading (which has been to my detriment on a number of occasions when trying to evade with my skirmishers through my pike blocks and rolling a 1 for the VMD).
Therefore why not allow this for any interpenetration. The BG carrying out the interpenetration is moved its normal move (in whatever terrain it is moving through) and the BG being interpenetrated is split with elements passed through being moved behind the moving BG. If there is insufficient room to do this, the interpenetration cannot happen. Both units would be classed as disrupted until one moves clear and neither can shoot, as per the existing rule.
So, no more warp space moves and it uses a variation on existing rules. It also means that players will think twice before carrying out risky interpenetrations close to the enemy.
Just my tuppence worth.
David

[ravenflight]

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 by ravenflight*

Phil,

There is an edit function on this forum. I'm sure (now that you've had time to think about it) that you didn't really mean to post this for the entire community to see. I'm sure you value what the people you spend your hobby time with think of you, so why don't you use the edit function and adjust your post.

Having said that, I'd accept the use of the 'river/road' terrain features if it was used against me. I'd think it rather gamey, but that's life... I'd get over it. However, I think that anyone who ever tries to deliberately use interpenetration for extra movement or punching through a terrain feature is likely to end up with a very boring 10:10 against me... maybe more if they have already got a few points against me - I mean I'm always interested in what the trade stalls have to sell.

As someone has said elsewhere in this forum, it's toy soldiers. It's a game.

[ravenflight]

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.

Yes, very simple Hammy. It covers interpenetration through massive terrain features too. They will never be able to get through as they will never have the movement to 'get to the other side' in a movement phase.

[ravenflight]

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!!

Martin Williams won Leviathan with an army made up of a lot of Lancer. It was officially a Hunnic list, but there were very few Huns in his army. It was mainly Lancers and Impact Foot.

On a table with a substantial amount of terrain, he kicked seven shades of crap out of my poor boys

[Blathergut]

...I'm glad ...

(Totally off topic...you're plural now...gallic nobles...haven't seen that one before!)

[philqw78]

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 by ravenflight*

Phil,

There is an edit function on this forum. I'm sure (now that you've had time to think about it) that you didn't really mean to post this for the entire community to see. I'm sure you value what the people you spend your hobby time with think of you, so why don't you use the edit function and adjust your post.

Yes the message it replied to has been edited too. 'Exploiter' was not the original word. I certainly meant what I said when I said it, but will remove it now

[philqw78]

(Totally off topic...you're plural now...gallic nobles...haven't seen that one before!)

Strange promoted from elite to superior. But at least I get a horse. Perhaps I'll get a lance after another few thousand posts?

[philqw78]

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.

Martin Williams won Leviathan with an army made up of a lot of Lancer. It was officially a Hunnic list, but there were very few Huns in his army. It was mainly Lancers and Impact Foot.

On a table with a substantial amount of terrain, he kicked seven shades of crap out of my poor boys

Huns get steppe, but even then may lose initiative and end up in crap terrain. Winning initiative and getting crap terrain would be a big downer with 28 bases of lancers, 1 of LH and some LF, because steppe is not in your list and agricultural gets filled with enclosed fields.

[ravenflight]

Huns get steppe, but even then may lose initiative and end up in crap terrain. Winning initiative and getting crap terrain would be a big downer with 28 bases of lancers, 1 of LH and some LF, because steppe is not in your list and agricultural gets filled with enclosed fields.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that he didn't win initiative and had what many would consider less than ideal terrain (I picked developed) for the kind of army he was running, yet still beat crap out of me. Incidentally, that was when we were trying to duke out first place, so it isn't like I'm a pushover of a player. I definitely think Martin is the superior player out of the two of us, but I also (non-vainly) think I'm not a bad player!

I admit I should have played better than I did in this instance, but I don't think you need a billiard table to win with a lancer/HF army.

[OldenTired]

Yes the message it replied to has been edited too. 'Exploiter' was not the original word. I certainly meant what I said when I said it, but will remove it now

again, i thought i was actually agreeing with you, hence the strong language.

as you can see, i have edited in the interests of neighbourliness.

[OldenTired]

Huns get steppe, but even then may lose initiative and end up in crap terrain.

sooo... a bit like invading europe then? this is a historical game after all.

fighting in adverse terrain is a real test of generalship. i should know, i've had a table covered in open fields that some english longbow used to kick seven shades of crap out of my swedes.

[philqw78]

Huns get steppe, but even then may lose initiative and end up in crap terrain.

sooo... a bit like invading europe then? this is a historical game after all.

Yes we played that game, Huns v's Romans, the 8000pts game at the BHGS Challenge, Chalons. Strangely, although the battle took place in Europe, the terrain was definately steppe. 1 big gentle hill and 3 small pieces of uneven on an 18 foot table. Historical refight. So perhaps the PBI is little to do with which country the battle takes place in, and more to do with who decides which field you are going to fight it in.

[OldenTired]

perhaps the PBI is little to do with which country the battle takes place in, and more to do with who decides which field you are going to fight it in.

pretty much. in my experience boards with heavy central terrain are unusual though. i count myself unlucky to have to fight around swathes of rough or difficult.

but as someone said earlier, nothing is any consolation when you're facing a swarm of drilled armoured MF...