Slitherine

Not at all, they have 800 points of troops on table, the same as their opponent. They should find a way of overcoming mismatches either through terrain, flank marching, good luck or whatever like generals had to in real life. Benny Hill chases around the table are just too ridiculous for words, players are welcome to do that at their club not in competition, at least not in the ones I umpire. Refusing a battle is perfectly legitimate at the strategic level but once you are on the battlefield it's too late. I want that reflected in the games.

This is utter crap. It is sometimes part of the objective to get your army to break up and follow you before turning around and giving them a kicking. Behaviour you would ignore. In fact, why not just ban evading at any of your tournaments, it is about that which you are going to do. It must be very satisfying to get one big long line of HF facing another big line of HF, throwing dice when they hit and deciding who wins. In fact why not just throw a dice at the start of the game - 1-3 you win 4-6 I win.

With regards to Footslogger's comment about skirmishers sitting in terrain, I see that as perfectly legitimate. You can send in your troops after them. Same goes with skirmishers evading. I'm not going to punish a player for using his troops in a sensibly historical manner but that doesn't cover entire armies about facing and moving away from a threat.

I presume the Normans at Hastings would have been given a red card and sent home with a smacked bum.

I am surprised anybody bothers to turn up to a tournament you organise. I hope to god the Spanish don't get the IWF any time shortly.

jlopez wrote:Not at all, they have 800 points of troops on table, the same as their opponent. They should find a way of overcoming mismatches either through terrain, flank marching, good luck or whatever like generals had to in real life. Benny Hill chases around the table are just too ridiculous for words, players are welcome to do that at their club not in competition, at least not in the ones I umpire. Refusing a battle is perfectly legitimate at the strategic level but once you are on the battlefield it's too late. I want that reflected in the games.
Julian

So if using your Persian army, made up of mainly poor troops, what would you have done against Spartans?? Fought him like a man or evaded once those Super Spartans charged. Or knowing he had to come forwards turned around to drag him in and then pummelled his flanks once they were open. I think thats -5 points. Or is it only what you consider unsporting that counts?

Because with a superior lancer army I would not be standing in front of the spartans until the last safe moment and all my other plans were in place.

I think the dullards who cannot come up with a plan, no matter what their opponent, should be penalised. And it seems the rules do that. If you want every game to finish play DBA.

madaxeman wrote:

david53 wrote: What you seem to miss is yes the LH scoot around but they don't do much damage to HF armoured, last night I shot at one BG of armoured spearman for at least four bounds with 2 and half BG LH without forcing a test. So lets be honest here yes they can get behind you but what can they do to you apart as you say from taking the camp.

Nope, I'm aware of this having seen it a few times

This isn't about "what can they do to me" - its more that an all LH army only needs to have 2 or 3 units of skirmishers to break through or sneak round the edge of a foot army, and then the rest can be pushed off table, and the camp eaten and the army still doesn't end up broken. In an extreme example, if I manage to flee 16 out of 19 enemy units off table AND capture their baggage so only 3 out of 19 original units are left on table, I reckon that really should be way beyond what is enough to count as a decisive win for me on a tactical level - but at the moment its not quite enough!

I understand what your saying but that counts for all armies not just LH many medium foot armies have more battle groups than mine.

Okey then while your chasing me I'm still trying to shoot you and against armoured foot i might as well throw my cat at them for what good LH shooting is. If it was suggested to increase this ability I would say go for the two points for evade or elese your just wanting all the cream(cat pun)

dave_r wrote:

Not at all, they have 800 points of troops on table, the same as their opponent. They should find a way of overcoming mismatches either through terrain, flank marching, good luck or whatever like generals had to in real life. Benny Hill chases around the table are just too ridiculous for words, players are welcome to do that at their club not in competition, at least not in the ones I umpire. Refusing a battle is perfectly legitimate at the strategic level but once you are on the battlefield it's too late. I want that reflected in the games.

This is utter crap. It is sometimes part of the objective to get your army to break up and follow you before turning around and giving them a kicking. Behaviour you would ignore. In fact, why not just ban evading at any of your tournaments, it is about that which you are going to do. It must be very satisfying to get one big long line of HF facing another big line of HF, throwing dice when they hit and deciding who wins. In fact why not just throw a dice at the start of the game - 1-3 you win 4-6 I win.

With regards to Footslogger's comment about skirmishers sitting in terrain, I see that as perfectly legitimate. You can send in your troops after them. Same goes with skirmishers evading. I'm not going to punish a player for using his troops in a sensibly historical manner but that doesn't cover entire armies about facing and moving away from a threat.

I presume the Normans at Hastings would have been given a red card and sent home with a smacked bum.

I am surprised anybody bothers to turn up to a tournament you organise. I hope to god the Spanish don't get the IWF any time shortly.

Dave,

No, I won't penalise "a player for using his troops in a sensibly historical manner" (in quotes just in case you didn't see it) so you can evade LH, LF, Cv to your heart's content. With regards to moving away from the enemy it'll be very clear whether a player is redeploying from one wing to another to launch an attack there or to outmanoeuvre units locally or is simply moving them away to avoid an army rout. I come back to the example of an entire Condotta army advancing towards a Swiss army, thinking better of it, turning 180 degrees and moving away for the rest of the game.

Interesting example Hastings. I don't seem to recall the entire Norman army turning around and marching away to avoid defeat when things weren't going too well. Didn't they keep at it until they won? Or have we been reading different history books?

With regards to your comments about tournaments I organize, I'd very much appreciate constructive criticism. I'm aware my proposals aren't perfect which is why I'm airing them to see whether they can be improved. If you feel the need to insult me feel free to do so via PM.

Phil and Nik,

Same answer. Nothing wrong with using a BG's tactical training to gain an advantage whether it's longbowmen moving away to get on flanks or Persian Cv evading. Same goes with superior lancers, you are more than welcome to delay an advance with skirmishers (or whatever) until your plan to win the game comes together. If you feel you can't win frontally then send flank marches, just don't rely on timing out out or running away to save your army.

Blitz and the red/yellow cards system are an answer to a specifically Spanish problem. Players have to travel a minimum of 2 hours to get to a tournament and the majority travel 5 hours. That usually involves taking one or two days off work and not inconsiderable travelling expenses. Added to the fact most players only own one army and these are mostly HF based you tend to find a lot of them get understandably a little frustrated when most of their games end in boring draws through lack of time and the "take no risk" attitude of their opponents. The result is that attendance at ancients competitions is going down year after year.

Interestingly enough, FOW competitions are doing spectacularly well, routinely attracing players who live well over 500 miles away. I'm no fan of FOW but win or lose at least you get a game. My proposals are a last-ditch attempt to encourage players back to ancients by ensuring results.

Funny you should mention DBA, Phil. Like FOW it's doing better than ever which I find depressing.

Julian

As I see it, Julian is simply saying that if an army has obviously given itself over to self-preservation by running away (whether that running away is compulsory or due to player volition) he will rule that that army is defeated.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

I like DBA, its not too thought provoking though. Same, although with very little experience to back this up, goes for FoW. Although their never ending additions to rules and different points for the same thing in a different book puts me off.
I can see your point about people basically running with no plan at any sort of come back, but surely that is due to inexperience in most cases.

Perhaps we need some sort of stalemate type rule where a certain percentage of your troops must be within a certain distance of the enemy if already having lost a certain percentage of your army, or if a certain percentage of your battle troops do not have enmy to their front at the end of the turn you forfeit.

But that would take a lot of working out and everybody would need to know the rule.

In the UK, tournament attendances are on the up. This is both themed tournaments and open tournaments. It would appear that a balance has been struck.

If most of the Spanish players only use HF and only have one army then yes they are going to be frustrated by LH. As they were historically. You cannot blame a set of historical rules for mimicing history. However, the few Spanish players I have met - all have used LH (certainly Pedro) so I think you are not quite correct.

There are many historical examples of Light Horse armies deciding that they have had enough and then running away - there is nothing their slower opponents on foot can do, in fact this is more difficult on the table because of the artificial restraints of the table.

Basically not allowing your LH players to play their armies properly would just drive them away. The historical example of Hastings where the Norman mounted ran away feigning an army rout - if this looked like a re-deployment then the Saxons wouldn't have gone running of the hill would they? I don't know what history books you have been reading but that is absolutely certain.

Similarly on a games table, sometimes I "pretend" to run away - even making appropriate noises like "Sod this I'm off" before running away with everything. If my opponent didn't believe I was running away he may not follow, which is all part of the plan. Using your suggestions I would have a red-card, at which point I would use a tactic you yourself have proposed by refusing to play another turn.

You could always try themed tournaments like "No light troops" or "all armies must contain four BG's of HF" to at least give the opponent something solid to go for. Remember, if you break 9 BG's out of a 12 BG army, whilst you haven't got the extra five points you have certainly won 18-2, which is a significant win.

The Northern Doubles gives players bonus points to their scores if they beat armies with large numbers of BG's - you could do the same, except give players that beat armies with more than five BG's of LH extra points. This would force people to either not bring Light Horse or bring armies to take them out and enforce a natural system.

I think making arbitrary rulings like yellow or red cards based on personal opinion is not going to increase attendances, but may alienate even more players.

It is starting to seem that we are talking circles with some suggesting its is okay for some troops to fight historically but not for others. LH based armies have their own issues if the player wants to win and running away may keep you from losing but it is not so productive if you want to win a comp. I played a horse shooty army at the ITC (without Steppe as an option, I might add) and only had one game that timed out (loosing draw at that). The other three games ended with an army breaking without time being called.

Unrealistically penalizing armies for using the tactics they used historically seems to be moving in the opposite direction of the author's intent (at least my interpretation of such) was to begin with in the rules.

maths Dave. 6/12 broken is an army break, 9AP out of 12 is not.

madaxeman wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Problem
Threatened BG with the capability to evade near the table edge evade off table for the loss of only 1AP. If they stayed on table they would most likely cost their owner 2AP for being routed. This makes large skirmish armies very difficult to beat, and after evading they are lost to the battle anyway.
Whats the Solution, is it a problem?

They all count as 2AP if your baggage is eaten. Simple and quite fun.

Now that is an excellent solution, sir. Elegant, and simple. It would have the interesting effect of making the baggage suddenly extra important if the evading army has a certain number of BGs evading. Adds tension to the end game.

Marc

babyshark wrote:

madaxeman wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Problem
Threatened BG with the capability to evade near the table edge evade off table for the loss of only 1AP. If they stayed on table they would most likely cost their owner 2AP for being routed. This makes large skirmish armies very difficult to beat, and after evading they are lost to the battle anyway.
Whats the Solution, is it a problem?

They all count as 2AP if your baggage is eaten. Simple and quite fun.

Now that is an excellent solution, sir. Elegant, and simple. It would have the interesting effect of making the baggage suddenly extra important if the evading army has a certain number of BGs evading. Adds tension to the end game.

Marc

I think I may well have suggested this some time ago. It would be my prefered 'solution' if a solution is needed.

I can't see why Light Horse would care about their camp though. If large numbers have already been shoved off the table then the baggage will inevitably be next.

I don't like this solution. There are other better ones.

berthier wrote:It is starting to seem that we are talking circles with some suggesting its is okay for some troops to fight historically but not for others. LH based armies have their own issues if the player wants to win and running away may keep you from losing but it is not so productive if you want to win a comp. I played a horse shooty army at the ITC (without Steppe as an option, I might add) and only had one game that timed out (loosing draw at that). The other three games ended with an army breaking without time being called.

Unrealistically penalizing armies for using the tactics they used historically seems to be moving in the opposite direction of the author's intent (at least my interpretation of such) was to begin with in the rules.

But what about those players who exploit the loose command control mechanism in fog to move their army for cheesy game related manouveres aimed at avoiding the enemy. For example heavy foot who turn around and move directly away from the enemy to defer combat.
At the moment, if the enemy is more than 6 inches away it is too easy for a player to turn his troops heavy foot etc around and move away. there is no complex move test, all units can move, there is no cohesion test on close freinds seeing their friends depart from the battlefield. This can be done by a wing or an entire army as Julian as referred to.
I can't see how this is historically accurate or why we should accept it onthe tabletop.

[quote="nikgaukroger

Nope, I'm considering the effect on both the LH and the opponents and on due consideration that a 2AP for evade will be a benefit to the game.[/quote]

.................. This is as it should be!

Mike B

hoodlum wrote:But what about those players who exploit the loose command control mechanism in fog to move their army for cheesy game related manouveres aimed at avoiding the enemy. For example heavy foot who turn around and move directly away from the enemy to defer combat.
At the moment, if the enemy is more than 6 inches away it is too easy for a player to turn his troops heavy foot etc around and move away. there is no complex move test,

Unfortunately for drilled troops there isn't. Perhaps there should be. But for undrilled to turn it is a CMT. A CMT to turn 180 for all would change things, but perhaps too many things.

I am of the belief that most players do turn up for a game, but some are maybe not so good at it, so rather than lose badly will drag out a draw. Perhaps those playing them should give them a bit of help instead of just cursing them.

I always explain a cheesy rule well before I use it.

hammy wrote:

babyshark wrote:

madaxeman wrote: They all count as 2AP if your baggage is eaten. Simple and quite fun.

Now that is an excellent solution, sir. Elegant, and simple. It would have the interesting effect of making the baggage suddenly extra important if the evading army has a certain number of BGs evading. Adds tension to the end game.

Marc

I think I may well have suggested this some time ago. It would be my prefered 'solution' if a solution is needed.

As I've stated add more firing ability of LH against armoured foot if you feel the urge to amend this or you'll swing the balance on to already too strong HF/MF. If this is changed IMO LH armies will stop being taken to events and as stated in this thread all you'll have is HF amies matching up in the middle like DBMM and the winner is the best dice thrower.

The problum here is the fact HF armies can't catch LH its that simple, TBH 2 AP for an evade or 10 AP for an evade you will still get people complaining that their wonder HF armies can't catch LH. What do you want the LH to stand and fight those superior impact foot HF.

I honestly can't see 1 point would stop people complaining about LH? why not instead go through the lists and take out all LH from armies except of course the superior roman LH.

mbsparta wrote:[quote="nikgaukroger

Nope, I'm considering the effect on both the LH and the opponents and on due consideration that a 2AP for evade will be a benefit to the game.

.................. This is as it should be!

Mike B[/quote]

Why should it?

philqw78 wrote: I am of the belief that most players do turn up for a game, but some are maybe not so good at it, so rather than lose badly will drag out a draw. Perhaps those playing them should give them a bit of help instead of just cursing them.

I always try and play the game, and yes I play using LH armies I know its bad I know and yes I'm not that good but I don't hide on the base line or terrain. Yes I get more than my fair share of draws not because I try for them but because I'm not a good player. I try with my armies but its experience with whatever army you use that counts?

david53 wrote:As I've stated add more firing ability of LH against armoured foot if you feel the urge to amend this or you'll swing the balance on to already too strong HF/MF. If this is changed IMO LH armies will stop being taken to events and as stated in this thread all you'll have is HF amies matching up in the middle like DBMM and the winner is the best dice thrower.

There wasn't a whole lot of HF matching up anywhere in DBMM at BRITCON. Cavalry, knights and to some extent bowmen were much more in evidence.

Or indeed by manoeuvre which may involve some troops moving away from the enemy at some time - which you would penalise it would appear - in the way Dave Handley did at the ITC in a couple of game and by so doing obtained decisive vitories. (As did a couple of Spanish players BTW)

Nick, it is fully accepted by the most of players, I do it usually, but there is some players who says "They can´t beat me in 3 hours and half" and they make enormous armies and they play slowly when the things seems bad. And we must to say thanks to FOG, when we played DBM this issue was a nightmare.


The armies with more than 15 Bgs are hard to beat, and if the player don´t want to play it´s absolutely impossible.


David