Broken Rules

[spike]

Perceived Problem
Player chooses a road and river and places them at table edge to reduce the amount of terrain that can be placed on the table by the opponent. (I don't think there is anything wrong with this personally, obviously lots of others do)

Whats the Solution?

Either
1: Terrain which cant be placed due to the presence of a road or river, can count the aforementioned road or river as the table edge for the purposes of terrain placement.
or
2: Road or river are shifted to allow for the placement of the terrain item "by the minimum possible distance".

Spike

[kal5056]

Perceived Problem
Player chooses a road and river and places them at table edge to reduce the amount of terrain that can be placed on the table by the opponent. (I don't think there is anything wrong with this personally, obviously lots of others do)

Whats the Solution?

Allow roads and Rivers to have terrain placed Over / Under them.
Gino
SMAC

[kal5056]

Perceived Problem
BG moving through others and gaining extra move distance. That BG can then itself be passed through by the same BG to gain extra move distance again. This can give massive move distances for some mounted and LF. (Even I believe this is broken)

What's the solution?

Make the both BG's Disrupted when it occurs by choice and planning.

Also don't consider a move that finishes part way into another BG a full movement for Undriled troops without a general.

Gino
SMAC

[spike]

Perceived Problem
BG moving through others and gaining extra move distance. That BG can then itself be passed through by the same BG to gain extra move distance again. This can give massive move distances for some mounted and LF. (Even I believe this is broken)

What's the solution?

Phil


Told you at the club this makes one makes your brain hurt. Some interpenetration has to be allowed as its historical however Hammy's solution is a good start which for thoses of you who dont go to MAWS is; (correct me Hammy if i'm wrong)

No BG can be interpenetrated, if it has already completed a movement action in the manovre phase

I would like to add to this that a rule;

No BG can interpenetrate a unit if this would allow them to pass into or through terrain which would "disorder" or "severely disorder" the interpenetrating group

Spike

[philqw78]

Also don't consider a move that finishes part way into another BG a full movement for Undriled troops without a general.
Gino
SMAC

That I like

[philqw78]

No BG can interpenetrate a unit if this would allow them to pass into or through terrain which would "disorder" or "severely disorder" the interpenetrating group

Spike

Simplify it. perhaps " no BG can pass though another BG in terrain that would disorder it" ??

try to make the easiest to understand and follow change

[philqw78]

Told you at the club this makes one makes your brain hurt.
Spike

That did

[spike]

Perceived Problem
Armies having a large number of very small and manoeuvrable BG are hard to beat in competition time scale.

(I don't think this is a massive problem, but it does make it harder against better or equally good players. There is less of a swing in fortune losing 1 BG of 18 than 1 of 12.)

Do we need a solution?

This is not a rules problem- if there is a problem its in the list scaling for unit size.
(I assume RBS, Nik and co used the abitary blokes per base, and then calculated how many bases would be needed for a cohort of legionaries or whatever).
Therefore the solution if any is obvious - amend the lists if they are wrong - but I dont think they are.

Roman armies were tough to beat for several reasons, and this just represents on of these reasons with their "superior unit organisation", but they can be beaten.

Spike

[spike]

Told you at the club this makes one makes your brain hurt.
Spike

That did

I'm not explaining my "patent bridge" here, as I dont want to write war and peace- You feel free to explain it to our listeners.

Spike

[philqw78]

I was criticising your English Spike. The bridge has been explained. Even in Italian.

[spike]

No BG can interpenetrate a unit if this would allow them to pass into or through terrain which would "disorder" or "severely disorder" the interpenetrating group

Spike

Simplify it. perhaps " no BG can pass though another BG in terrain that would disorder it" ??

try to make the easiest to understand and follow change

Phil

Thats why I dont want to write rules, I'm no good at putting my thoughts into simple and well thought through instructions, there again i'm not alone - look at DBMM

Spike

[spike]

I was criticising your English Spike. The bridge has been explained. Even in Italian.

Not all of it !

[philqw78]

Not all of it !

...
"L'interpenetrazione non può superare il movimento normale di quell'unità in quel tipo di terreno. Se l'unità non riesce a passare completamente dall'altra parte dovrà fermarsi a contatto col lato più prossimo."

...
Come conseguenza negativa vedo una possibile riduzione dell'azione degli schermagliatori, che difficilmente in evasione potranno soddisfare a questa regola. Se la si inserisce solo per il movimento normale allora può funzionare,...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saluti a tutti e grazie a Zatapec
Concordo con Mario. La regola 'drastica' va considerata solo per il movimento 'normale' (intendevo così).
Anche perchè:
1- Per quello che si capisce anche gli autori vorrebbero intervenire solo per le mosse normali;
2- Sarebbero escluse solo rotte ed evasioni, che d'altronde in buona parte sono difficili da architettare in modo così preciso;
3- Fortunatamente gli Elefanti non evadono e così almeno il Dumbo volante ce lo risparmiamo!
Una volta che Andrea, sentiti tutti, avrà deciso proporrei di informare anche il forum in inglese della posizione ufficiale della Federazione Italiana. Magari servirà a mettere un pò di pepe nel didietro degli autori.
Ci si vede a Modena.

[philqw78]

Covers most of it. The elephant "Elefanti non evadono "

[spike]

Covers most of it

#

2 problems.......

1: I dont read Italian, although I think I may have some of what is being said without translation.

2: Did I mention I dont read German, or Spanish either

That should cover all the rule editions

[philqw78]

They knew elefant thru wood before you. I was busy trying to edit to point it out. Elefanti non evadono

Good night Spike I have to get drunk tomorrow

[Blathergut]

Perceived Problem
Armies having a large number of very small and manoeuvrable BG are hard to beat in competition time scale.

(I don't think this is a massive problem, but it does make it harder against better or equally good players. There is less of a swing in fortune losing 1 BG of 18 than 1 of 12.)

Do we need a solution?

Maybe the problem rests with the way you are playing tournaments? What I mean is, the army you would like to run against the Rom Dom Swarm, is there a configuration that would more successfully fight the swarm army? If faced with that type of opponent historically, would the army have come up with some way of countering it? Maybe there will always be some army configurations that are very good against most others. Just thoughts. Has anyone come up with ways to fight them? Could you give us your ideas here?

[david53]

Perceived Problem
Armies having a large number of very small and manoeuvrable BG are hard to beat in competition time scale.

(I don't think this is a massive problem, but it does make it harder against better or equally good players. There is less of a swing in fortune losing 1 BG of 18 than 1 of 12.)

Do we need a solution?

Maybe the problem rests with the way you are playing tournaments? What I mean is, the army you would like to run against the Rom Dom Swarm, is there a configuration that would more successfully fight the swarm army? If faced with that type of opponent historically, would the army have come up with some way of countering it? Maybe there will always be some army configurations that are very good against most others. Just thoughts. Has anyone come up with ways to fight them? Could you give us your ideas here?

I would imagine an army with BG of 6 bases drilled superior protected impact foot would give them a good run.

[hammy]

This thread is an interesting idea but it is almost impossible to follow. IMO it would be far better as a series of threads, one on each possible 'issue'

FWIW I agree that interpenetration needs looking at but it does need careful consideration if it is not to introduce other more serious problems. At the moment my favourite is to only allow the full interpenetration in the movement phase if the front rank of a BG can make it to the far side of the BG being interpenetrated. I don't like the can't move if you are interpenetrated idea, that could easily slow the game down and make light foot skirmishers more of a pest that they are at the moment.

The river and road 'problem' is one that I believe was considered by the authors during development and wasn't thought to be a serious issue. As for fixes I quite like Spikes idea of moving the road the minimum required to allow terrain to be placed.

LH evading off table and armies with lots of BGs are related, converting off table BGs to 2 AP when the camp falls is IMO a nice one and will make life harder for massed LH armies but they are hardly dominiating the game at the moment are they? Limiting the AP for army break while it will make it easier to break horde armies is not going to stop Graham Evans doing well with Dominate Romans. To be honest forcing the BG size to 6 is not going to make a lot of difference either. Horde armies did well in the early days of FoG but they are no longer any where near as successful.

I think that the interpenetration rule is the only one that really needs addressing and only for movement not for routs, evades etc.

[hammy]

Maybe the problem rests with the way you are playing tournaments? What I mean is, the army you would like to run against the Rom Dom Swarm, is there a configuration that would more successfully fight the swarm army? If faced with that type of opponent historically, would the army have come up with some way of countering it? Maybe there will always be some army configurations that are very good against most others. Just thoughts. Has anyone come up with ways to fight them? Could you give us your ideas here?

I would imagine an army with BG of 6 bases drilled superior protected impact foot would give them a good run.

I have managed to lose twice with a Dominate swarm, once against Phil Powell's Picts (a very good anti Dominate army BTW) and once against Simon Hall's Christian Nubians (another good anti Dominate).

The problem is that Graham Evans is a good player, other than Graham the only player I am aware of who has won a tournament using a Dominate swarm is myself and I like to think I am at least competent. If Graham had won all those the tournaments with an army of armoured knights would we be grumbling about how effective armoured knights were?

Dominate is a good army but it is not all powerful. Just like in DBM Patrician Roman was a good army and in the right hands it was a world beater, oddly only a thiny handful of players were ever able to win torunaments with it.