Slitherine

Polkovnik wrote:

Blathergut wrote: Point is just to get the heavies into things sooner since they often do have to worry about flanks! .

But by getting the heavies into action sooner you create flank trouble. Other HF won't keep up and cavalry can only keep up if they are double moving with a general also.

You have 7 BGs (the majority of your army) covering only 13% of the table width. That leaves a lot of open space.

Also, once your opponent has seen you do this once, the placement of your FF will give away your deployment. He can then deploy to avoid it and you've wasted points on the FF.

Isn't the goal to get the heavies in as soon as you can? How can delaying that help flanks in a Roman army? Flanks usually take 2-3 turns to connect and 3-4 to fight...the sooner the centre hits the better.

Actually it's 7 out of 16 at 800pts...the rear BGs can stay there or move out to either side as needed. Lots of BGs on both sides of it.

The deployment was just for interest. Use it more than once or not...each to their own. FF can always be placed somewhere else too.

Hi Blatherguts... after seeing your pictures I've revised my opinion. I think it's less cheesy than I originally thought. I would never have had a problem with it, but would have 'rolled my eyes' probably, but mostly because the way it was described it sounded like 'trying to get something out of the rules for a purpose other than what it was intended without rationale'. Now that I think about it a little bit the Romans were masters of fortifications, and so it could be rationalised (if you care to) by the fortifications being the early stages of another camp (and there are examples of mulitple camps in one battle).

Additionally, you fix your deployment a lot more. You either comply with your original plan and put the Legion down where the fortifications are, or you react to the other players deployment and waste points on the forts (assuming he deploys differently after he sees you putting forts down).

That's the other thing though, I think you'll find many comp players will assume that the forts are going to hold Heavy Artillery. Since it's only 2 bases wide, and the Romans can have heavy arty, that's what I would automatically assume, so they may avoid the whole area, or screen it off with lights.

Ian

Having used fortifications with Gauls I think it's not a bad idea. Often players will avoid the fortifications, and this can be used to fight along the table length instead of width protecting the blank. Legions turn on a dime and are difficult to flank.

So is this really legal?

You can't move through defended FF, right? It's only if the FF are undefended that they can be moved through. Contacting the rear of the FF makes them, by definition, defended.

Don't get me started on the rather stretched application of "behind FF" being used to legitimize this setup.

The two BGs of 4 not in contact with the FF must be illegally placed as well. Not by the RAW but the only reasonable interp is that they are defending the FF.

Otherwise - as I pointed out in a prior post - you could place one FF at the edge of th etable facing away from the middle of the table and deply your whole army 'behind the FF at 15inches!

Silly I know but if you disallow that then youd have to also disallow other BGs clamouring behind FF that are defended by others.

Anthony

hmm...so each BG wanting to claim/do this has to be touching an FF with at least one base...k...see?....keep learning stuff all the time

thanks gentlemen!

...or...better said, all bases of the BG have to be behind, with at least 1 touching....think i will go back to my FF + Fort. Camp + artillery defense

I'm going slightly off topic....

The move with the slingers is not legal. You expand before moving, and you can't do it in this situation.

Why not?

P47 - Interpenetrations - Light foot can pass through any troops in any direction.

Why do you think this is illegal?

Pete

Cool....ya kno...what probably helps is playing in a group...more minds bouncing over rules and situations...where if you just have 2 guys on their own it's often more difficult to pick up all points of the rules.

Again, thanks to all.

I am thinking about this with my Battlewagons for my Hussites.. I put one base of FF out to 15" for each one of my BWG i plan on putting out there.. I know they don't get the bonus in combat for it.. But it would allow me to get my wagons far enough away from the rear table edge to have reserves. Now for the flanks I am not sure what to do.

Andy1972 wrote:I am thinking about this with my Battlewagons for my Hussites.. I put one base of FF out to 15" for each one of my BWG i plan on putting out there.. I know they don't get the bonus in combat for it.. But it would allow me to get my wagons far enough away from the rear table edge to have reserves. Now for the flanks I am not sure what to do.

cheap stuff that can delay/hang up enemy for a couple turns at least...then fight and die but take 3 or 4 turns doing that!!!!...whilst ye olde battlewagons do whatever they do in the centre

So far I have managed to avoid both your FF and artillery, so please spend the points on stuff I never get close to. Rather that than more Dacians.... superior heavy weapons egads!!!