Broken Rules

[nikgaukroger]

Once again this whole arguement is not about the 2 points for an evade it is the evading that people dislike and the ability of both HF/MF to catch or not catch LH. If a rule change would'nt make you play LH differently whats the change for then, if not giving the foot armies something to chase and what do the LH get out of this deal? I understand your arguement but disagree completely with it.

IMO it makes the effort of chasing down LH more worthwhile - 1AP if the LH evade off table isn't a reward commesurate with the effort needed. LH don't need to get anything from this deal, they already have too much IMO (and even the LH-meister Ruddocks I note) and this would be a balancing factor.

[david53]

Once again this whole arguement is not about the 2 points for an evade it is the evading that people dislike and the ability of both HF/MF to catch or not catch LH. If a rule change would'nt make you play LH differently whats the change for then, if not giving the foot armies something to chase and what do the LH get out of this deal? I understand your arguement but disagree completely with it.

IMO it makes the effort of chasing down LH more worthwhile - 1AP if the LH evade off table isn't a reward commesurate with the effort needed. LH don't need to get anything from this deal, they already have too much IMO (and even the LH-meister Ruddocks I note) and this would be a balancing factor.

The ability of you getting points from your oppenont is the game is it not, you want more points for chasing me I say no its good as it is.

Just because someone (ie Dave Ruddock)agrees with you dos'nt means your arguement is right?

LH already get too much you say more so than Lancer Cavalry or Bow/Sword Cavalry. What they get in FOG is the ability to act like LH for once, and people seem to have a downer on that.

[david53]

No it dos'nt simples

Can't help you if it doesn't benefit your game, but I'll go for the majority for whom it will

Did'nt ask for any help, quite happy really it seems you think the rules need changing for the majority not me.

In that case now many times just for interest have you evaded off table when playing a LH army over a year say.

Do you think its just cause they could'nt be bothered chasing LH, or is it because they are hard to catch unless you also have LH.

I know I could count the times its happened to me over the last year on one hand in fact half a hand and yes I have played LH armies in all but one off the events over the last year.

I also know that what really gets to people has nothing to do with AP with regard to evades, the fact is its back to trying to catch LH by slower troops that really annoy's people.

[spike]

Once again this whole arguement is not about the 2 points for an evade it is the evading that people dislike and the ability of both HF/MF to catch or not catch LH. If a rule change would'nt make you play LH differently whats the change for then, if not giving the foot armies something to chase and what do the LH get out of this deal?.

AFAICS no-one is suggesting emasculating LH, no-one here wants or expects LH to be ever caught by HF, no-one wants to see LH-centric armies rendered unplayable or to see them disappear from the table in competitions, friendlies or otherwise, and no-one is proposing implementing a complete suite of rule changes all of which penalise LH. That would be madness and folly of the highest order. The ability to use LH as, well, LH worked historically is excellent, its a great thing about the rules.

But from a gameplay and game balance POV a few of us just happen to think that it would be nice if a MH or HF army could feel it perhaps had a slight, teeny-weenie little chance, if handled well or if the terrain falls extremely favourably, of inflicting an "army-broken" result on a LH-type army. Because at the moment many peoples view is that a lucky, and/or well led LH-type army can occasionally expect to inflict a total defeat on a HF or MF army (armoured or not), but as long as they are at least competently led the LH army simply will not ever face a total defeat at the hands of a non-shooting MF/HF army in an 800 AP-a-side game.

The question we are - to my mind - debating is which one of the many suggested "anti-LH" tweaks would ever so slightly shift that perceived imbalance and give MF/HF players a glimmer of hope but without in turn emasculating LH?

"Hope" - not total dominance and a radical shift in game play and balance - is all we are trying to give MF/HF, and "avoiding emasculation" is what LH should be expecting to get out of the deal.

Tim

This is not the response I started 15 mins ago....... my suprise reaction to your latest thoughts, caused me to have a nosebleed (no i'm not joking but I am being humerous , as it was the aftershock of the one I had at work this afternoon! )

However back to LH thoughts-
I'm glad that you accept there should be LH, which act as Historical LH should, however the idea that MF/HF should have a chance to catch them, because of some "game balance idea" is not a good enough reason on its own to allow it to happen.
We have to think historicaly why foot armies beat the steppe armies- be that it was terrain, or lack of effectiveness of their missiles against foot, or some other observed strategy which worked but is not represented by these rules. Is it that the army lists themselves are plain wrong, which has made LH armies in FoG overpowerful, are their caperbilities overstated. Or is it as we are stating here that the rules themselves are not quite right, either with the main rules themselves, and/or is it the initaive and table setup rules which gives them too much open space in which to play.

As interpenetration seems to be a problem for more than just LH, it is probably some sort of rules fix that is needed, so lets get the "Triumvirate" to get their fixes (they may have their own ideas, along with the many suggestions running through this thread), in place.
Up to the point of the publication of amendments, I dont think this should preclude the addition of more suggestions, or any constructive amendments to their wording, or even downright disagreement with other peoples ideas- as long as we keep it civil. Only after they have something concrete, should we put up/shut up and lets see if what they suggest works in gameplay for a period.


Spike

[nikgaukroger]

The ability of you getting points from your oppenont is the game is it not, you want more points for chasing me I say no its good as it is.

Just because someone (ie Dave Ruddock)agrees with you dos'nt means your arguement is right?

LH already get too much you say more so than Lancer Cavalry or Bow/Sword Cavalry. What they get in FOG is the ability to act like LH for once, and people seem to have a downer on that.

Very few people (because there are always contrarians) are actually complaining that LH are behaving like LH did and, IMO, to say so is misrepresentiung what the majority feel. I think Tim's last post summed up fairly well what the position is - a matter of balancing things out a bit to make reward more commensurate with the effort expended. This won't affect LH acting like LH.

[nikgaukroger]

In that case now many times just for interest have you evaded off table when playing a LH army over a year say.

Possibly a couple of times.

Do you think its just cause they could'nt be bothered chasing LH, or is it because they are hard to catch unless you also have LH.

Both. Whilst LH are hard to catch (but you don't need LH to do it) I have certainly had opponents effectively say that it isn't worth the effort at times because "you'll just evade off table". IMO that is a bad thing - it is the wrong incentive for not chasing the LH; more credible ones are available in the game already.

[timmy1]

I have agreed with Mike Campbell on FoG:R and now I am going to agree with Spike. Is there any hope for my mortal soul?

It may have been suggested before here or elsewhere but one key to defeating LH armies is terrain. In the period of which I know a little, the Romans lose when they fight Persians in the open. They seem to win when they fight in hills, e.g. invading via Armenia.

One way to alter the LH balance would be to have terrain initiative (PBI) not be modified by the number of mounted bases. It would then be just commander and dice.

A further thought would be that the player with the least BG gets choice of initiative, role a dice in the event of a tie.

Both of these suggestions have other impacts but it might sort this one.

[nikgaukroger]

Up to the point of the publication of amendments, I dont think this should preclude the addition of more suggestions, or any constructive amendments to their wording, or even downright disagreement with other peoples ideas- as long as we keep it civil. Only after they have something concrete, should we put up/shut up and lets see if what they suggest works in gameplay for a period.

Bugger that This is a wargaming forum, we express opinions and bias regardless - its traditional

[david53]

The ability of you getting points from your oppenont is the game is it not, you want more points for chasing me I say no its good as it is.

Just because someone (ie Dave Ruddock)agrees with you dos'nt means your arguement is right?

LH already get too much you say more so than Lancer Cavalry or Bow/Sword Cavalry. What they get in FOG is the ability to act like LH for once, and people seem to have a downer on that.

Very few people (because there are always contrarians) are actually complaining that LH are behaving like LH did and, IMO, to say so is misrepresentiung what the majority feel. I think Tim's last post summed up fairly well what the position is - a matter of balancing things out a bit to make reward more commensurate with the effort expended. This won't affect LH acting like LH.

I understand all what you and Tim are saying completely.

I maybe utterly wrong but Tim is suggesting a shift in balance with regard to MF catching and destroying LH armies a bit more than AP evades here then.

[spike]

Up to the point of the publication of amendments, I dont think this should preclude the addition of more suggestions, or any constructive amendments to their wording, or even downright disagreement with other peoples ideas- as long as we keep it civil. Only after they have something concrete, should we put up/shut up and lets see if what they suggest works in gameplay for a period.

Bugger that This is a wargaming forum, we express opinions and bias regardless - its traditional

Let's at least give any amendments a chance before you slag them off Nik Afterall we have put up with "Barkerese" for soooooo long- so lets not give up on "Triumverese" just yet

[nikgaukroger]

I have agreed with Mike Campbell on FoG:R .

Talking of which, isn't it time you actually did some testing of said rather than just dribbling on?

[timmy1]

Too true. Unfortunately troops are currently in storage while the furnature is being installed to convert my study into an office. Next week however.

[david53]

In that case now many times just for interest have you evaded off table when playing a LH army over a year say.

Possibly a couple of times.

Do you think its just cause they could'nt be bothered chasing LH, or is it because they are hard to catch unless you also have LH.

Both. Whilst LH are hard to catch (but you don't need LH to do it) I have certainly had opponents effectively say that it isn't worth the effort at times because "you'll just evade off table". IMO that is a bad thing - it is the wrong incentive for not chasing the LH; more credible ones are available in the game already.

For those that play with HF and to a certain extent MF the adding 1AP for evades will not help them. As you've said you have evaded very few so IMO adding an extra point will not help those fighting LH armies. Those with Cavalry Lancers already are quite strong and Cav/Bow just the same those are the armies that will gain.

[nikgaukroger]

I maybe utterly wrong but Tim is suggesting a shift in balance with regard to MF catching and destroying LH armies a bit more than AP evades here then.

Well give that Tim said (excuse partial quote but I think it doesn't distort his point):

AFAICS no-one is suggesting emasculating LH, no-one here wants or expects LH to be ever caught by HF, no-one wants to see LH-centric armies rendered unplayable or to see them disappear from the table in competitions, friendlies or otherwise, and no-one is proposing implementing a complete suite of rule changes all of which penalise LH. That would be madness and folly of the highest order. The ability to use LH as, well, LH worked historically is excellent, its a great thing about the rules.

But from a gameplay and game balance POV a few of us just happen to think that it would be nice if a MH or HF army could feel it perhaps had a slight, teeny-weenie little chance, if handled well or if the terrain falls extremely favourably, of inflicting an "army-broken" result on a LH-type army. Because at the moment many peoples view is that a lucky, and/or well led LH-type army can occasionally expect to inflict a total defeat on a HF or MF army (armoured or not), but as long as they are at least competently led the LH army simply will not ever face a total defeat at the hands of a non-shooting MF/HF army in an 800 AP-a-side game.

He appears to me to be saying that it is the chance of an army break is too little and as he isn't suggesting changing the LH rules (see top bit about LH being historical is a good thing) I am taking it to be the AP he is on about - that would be the game balance part.

[lawrenceg]

I have agreed with Mike Campbell on FoG:R and now I am going to agree with Spike. Is there any hope for my mortal soul?

It may have been suggested before here or elsewhere but one key to defeating LH armies is terrain. In the period of which I know a little, the Romans lose when they fight Persians in the open. They seem to win when they fight in hills, e.g. invading via Armenia.

One way to alter the LH balance would be to have terrain initiative (PBI) not be modified by the number of mounted bases. It would then be just commander and dice.

A further thought would be that the player with the least BG gets choice of initiative, role a dice in the event of a tie.

Both of these suggestions have other impacts but it might sort this one.

I get the impression that most experienced LH players would rather have first move than choose the terrain. So this modification would actually help LH armies.

[timmy1]

Lawreance - ONLY the terrain part - the who goes first would remain unchanged under my proposal so the LH player wold likely end up with bad terrain and going second!

[spike]

I maybe utterly wrong but Tim is suggesting a shift in balance with regard to MF catching and destroying LH armies a bit more than AP evades here then.

Well give that Tim said (excuse partial quote but I think it doesn't distort his point):

AFAICS no-one is suggesting emasculating LH, no-one here wants or expects LH to be ever caught by HF, no-one wants to see LH-centric armies rendered unplayable or to see them disappear from the table in competitions, friendlies or otherwise, and no-one is proposing implementing a complete suite of rule changes all of which penalise LH. That would be madness and folly of the highest order. The ability to use LH as, well, LH worked historically is excellent, its a great thing about the rules.

But from a gameplay and game balance POV a few of us just happen to think that it would be nice if a MH or HF army could feel it perhaps had a slight, teeny-weenie little chance, if handled well or if the terrain falls extremely favourably, of inflicting an "army-broken" result on a LH-type army. Because at the moment many peoples view is that a lucky, and/or well led LH-type army can occasionally expect to inflict a total defeat on a HF or MF army (armoured or not), but as long as they are at least competently led the LH army simply will not ever face a total defeat at the hands of a non-shooting MF/HF army in an 800 AP-a-side game.

He appears to me to be saying that it is the chance of an army break is too little and as he isn't suggesting changing the LH rules (see top bit about LH being historical is a good thing) I am taking it to be the AP he is on about - that would be the game balance part.

Nik

I have to disagree with your anaysis and agree with Si. Whilst you think that 2ap for evade off table is a game balance fix, it is curing a symptom of the problem - why not fix the problem it's self, with reasons based on history as to why LH armies did not take over the world (although the Mongols nearly suceeded in that!).

For me pure game balance only fixes often lead to unwanted or undesired side effects, which rules lawyers exploit.

Spike

[dave_r]

Lawreance - ONLY the terrain part - the who goes first would remain unchanged under my proposal so the LH player wold likely end up with bad terrain and going second!

So, if you are facing a LH army you get to pick the terrain you want AND move first? What a total disaster that would be. If you are going to face Light Horse (and let's be honest they are fairly prevalent) then why not do what the generals in history did - PLAN FOR IT. It is no good turning up to play a game with no plan of what to do against massed light horse - the Crusaders changed tactics why can't table top generals?

Don't give me nonsense about not being able to, Cavalry, Superior, Armoured, Light Spear, Swd cost 16 points (17 if Drilled) and a good wodge of them will massacre LH. All Drilled MF give LH a bad day and most Armoured Foot aren't bothered either.

I have to disagree with your anaysis and agree with Si. Whilst you think that 2ap for evade off table is a game balance fix, it is curing a symptom of the problem - why not fix the problem it's self, with reasons based on history as to why LH armies did not take over the world (although the Mongols nearly suceeded in that!).

So apart from the Mongols, the Skythians conquered Asia, the Turks conquered the middle East, the Sarmations ruled Asia. So as far as I can see LH armies were exceptionally succesful. In fact - can you name me one that wasn't very succesful?

I think that the main reason massed Light Horse wasn't in every army is availability.

[batesmotel]

...
Nik

I have to disagree with your anaysis and agree with Si. Whilst you think that 2ap for evade off table is a game balance fix, it is curing a symptom of the problem - why not fix the problem it's self, with reasons based on history as to why LH armies did not take over the world (although the Mongols nearly suceeded in that!).

For me pure game balance only fixes often lead to unwanted or undesired side effects, which rules lawyers exploit.

Spike

The main reason that LH armies didn't take over the world are things that would make sense in a campaign context, not in a table top battle and hence not something that FoG needs to handle, at least until a campaign supplement is published. (Dow, Sword LH shouldn't be very efficient at assaulting walled cities, for example.) The victory conditions and scoring system in the rules are completely an artifact of this being a game and hence it does make sense to consider the change to 2 AP for evading off table purely as a mechanism for game balance. It really has nothing to do with simulating history, only with making FoG play better as a game. (I'm not arguing either way for or against the change, just that this type of change is purely a game mechanism question and not a simulation one. I don't know if it would make the game play better or not without trying it out for a number of games.)

Chris

[timmy1]

Dave

Poor words on my part. The PBI would remain the same other than the terrain initiative would change to ignore mounted troops. If it was as I summarised above I agree it would be too far and unhistorical.