Rules for Review.

[OldenTired]

180 degree turns and feigned retreats

there seems to be a pattern of players retreating after deployment. i've seen two different players use this in games, on different occasions. it's used to hide BG.

while feints were used strategically, i think we'd have trouble finding examples of them working tactically. the battle of grandson springs to mind as an example

and this is a tactical game.

we can't stop BG moving in any particular direction, but we could stop battlelines of shock troops, MF or HF moving towards their own baseline.

[DavidT]

I agree.
A simple rule is to make all BGs take a CMT to turn 180 degrees. Drilled troops will still have an advantage over undrilled troops as they only need a 7 to pass. Therefore turning a Battleline is a riskiy business, just as in reality it would be, as some BGs may fail, causing confusion as some troops end up facing one way and some the other.
Definately not something to be done when the enemy is approaching.

[deadtorius]

Interpenetration
this seems to be a hot topic. How about you can only pass through lights if they are in a line no more than 2 bases deep. No interpenetration of columns to zap yourself half way across the table. To me a colum is a more solid grouping than a loose line with plenty of space in it.
interpenetration of lights by routers
Someone had suggested that lights that are interpenetrated by routers should be swept up and run away with the routing unit. I agree if the routing unit is non-lights, the lights should roll VMD and flee directly away from the routers if they would be passed through by a routing unit. If you were a bunch of lights and see a body of medium or heavy friends heading your way whatever could be behind them is not likely something you would want to see so running off ahead of them seems to make some sense.

[OldenTired]

[quote="deadtorius]
interpenetration of lights by routers
Someone had suggested that lights that are interpenetrated by routers should be swept up and run away with the routing unit. I agree if the routing unit is non-lights, the lights should roll VMD and flee directly away from the routers if they would be passed through by a routing unit. If you were a bunch of lights and see a body of medium or heavy friends heading your way whatever could be behind them is not likely something you would want to see so running off ahead of them seems to make some sense.[/quote]

that was me, and it seemed to be sensible. that said, once the router interpenetrates the lights are likely to be charged, and flee anyhow!

[deadtorius]

Olden Tired, I think the lights should try their best to stay ahead of the routers so if a rout move would take the routers through the lights the lights would VMD first then the routers would move, keeps it a little neater on the table top I would think. good idea

[dave_g]

No, this would completely destroy any army that relies on evading.
Why? What risk did it carry historically?

Troops who were chased across the battle field had a nasty habit of not stopping, even when the chasers did. This was especially true of poor quality troops, or if there were no supporting troops to rally on.

Lets take the Skythians how would you play this 800 point army with only three proper BG's supported by skirmshing LH or LF?

I actually use the Scythians, and the Rhoxolani version of the Sarmatians.

I have used this rule variation, versus Sassanids (win), Macedonians (win), and Dominate Roman (losing draw).

Without this rule winning was painfully easy, with it some thought needed to be given to where and how to apply pressure, and where to hold back.

The keys to success were providing support to skirmishers, keeping generals in the right place, using superior speed and flexibility to take advantage of any fleeting opportunity, and tempting opponents into providing those opportunities.

As for the Mongols an "evade" in game terms of 150 miles is not physically possible even for them.

A strategic or grand tactical withdrawal of 150 miles is possible, with a separation between the armies exceeding bow shot for the majority of the time. In game terms this is not an evade.

To count as evades they would need to be in continuos bow-shot range, and being continuosly charged, for 150 miles, which is not physically possible for either man or horse(s).

I don't know the army lists for Mongols, but at a guess some of the LH could be superior, with the possibility of an IC general.
With the proposed rule amendment they would be almost immune to failing a test with support and in range of the general anyway.

[philqw78]

I actually use the Scythians, and the Rhoxolani version of the Sarmatians.

I have used this rule variation, versus Sassanids (win), Macedonians (win), and Dominate Roman (losing draw).

Without this rule winning was painfully easy, with it some thought needed to be given to where and how to apply pressure, and where to hold back.

The keys to success were providing support to skirmishers, keeping generals in the right place, using superior speed and flexibility to take advantage of any fleeting opportunity, and tempting opponents into providing those opportunities.

You must have been playing some rather inexperienced and poor players when the chance of failing a waver test is higher for the evader than those being shot by evaders.

[dave_r]

The keys to success were providing support to skirmishers

You are aware that skirmishers can't provide rear support to other skirmishers?

If you did have some "proper" troops providing rear support then theses would then immediately get burst through and go disrupted. Hence not being able to provide rear support anymore.

This is a particularly poorly thought out rule - and as others have mentioned, this thread is to fix rule issues not massively overhaul the game into how you want it to play.

[philqw78]

You are aware that skirmishers can't provide rear support to other skirmishers?

Unless the supporting skirmishers are cavalry

If you did have some "proper" troops providing rear support then theses would then immediately get burst through and go disrupted. Hence not being able to provide rear support anymore.

And then subsequently be charged themselves, requiring a cohesion test if they were to evade.

[nikgaukroger]

You are aware that skirmishers can't provide rear support to other skirmishers?

Unless the supporting skirmishers are cavalry

Skirmishers are defined as BGs of entirely LF or LH in the rules ...

[philqw78]

OK then, unless the supports are battle troops capable of skirmishing

[dave_g]

The keys to success were providing support to skirmishers

You are aware that skirmishers can't provide rear support to other skirmishers?

If you did have some "proper" troops providing rear support then theses would then immediately get burst through and go disrupted. Hence not being able to provide rear support anymore.

This is a particularly poorly thought out rule - and as others have mentioned, this thread is to fix rule issues not massively overhaul the game into how you want it to play.

I don't have the rules on me, but aren't they only burst through by routers?
Putting fragmented troops in a position to be charged is not good tactics under the existing rules - in fact a cohesion test is required for these troops anyway, so this objection is moot.

[philqw78]

The keys to success were providing support to skirmishers

You are aware that skirmishers can't provide rear support to other skirmishers?

If you did have some "proper" troops providing rear support then theses would then immediately get burst through and go disrupted. Hence not being able to provide rear support anymore.

This is a particularly poorly thought out rule - and as others have mentioned, this thread is to fix rule issues not massively overhaul the game into how you want it to play.

I don't have the rules on me, but aren't they only burst through by routers?
Putting fragmented troops in a position to be charged is not good tactics under the existing rules - in fact a cohesion test is required for these troops anyway, so this objection is moot.

Troops burst through by routers or evaders are disrupted. What fragmented has to do with the above I do not know, but most of the skirmishers would soon be fragmented with your rule anyway.

If an evader failed the CT, disrupted, was caught by the pursuer, fragmenting it, routed through its support, disrupting it and causing a cohesion test, fragmenting it, then another test for charged whilst fragmented, then, if it passed that a test to evade, because it wouldn't want to stand whilst fragmented.

[dave_r]

I don't have the rules on me, but aren't they only burst through by routers?

No.

Putting fragmented troops in a position to be charged is not good tactics under the existing rules - in fact a cohesion test is required for these troops anyway, so this objection is moot.

Who mentioned Fragged troops? You have some cavalry behind your light horse providing "rear support" (god knows how you are meant to win the battle when your best troops are denigrated to preventing skirmishers from breaking because they are galloping about on their horses). They get burst through by the LH thereby disrupting them. Your enemy then has the opportunity to smash into your best troops who are all now disrupted.

Brilliant rule that. Keep them coming...

[petedalby]

Brilliant rule that. Keep them coming..

Do I detect a note of sarcasm?

[petedalby]

It's been discussed before.

Easy solution is to leave deployment of a Road until last.

Alternative is to allow most / any terrain to be superimposed on a Road.

[david53]

Brilliant rule that. Keep them coming..

Do I detect a note of sarcasm?

Dave never!

[philqw78]

Easy solution is to leave deployment of a Road until last.
Alternative is to allow most / any terrain to be superimposed on a Road.

But the rule writers, or at least Si, said it was left in knowing this would happen. In the lists armies are given the terrain types prevalent in their base area. Not the terrain they prefer to fight in. Hence some nearly all mounted armies get crap terrain for mounted.

[gozerius]

Not so much a broken rule, but there seems to be a widely held assumption that the Diagram on page 87 which shows an example of a melee that cannot line up is incorrect. Or rather, the information is correct, but is incomplete. (Try that on your tax auditer.) I would like an official clarification that either validates the information on pages72 and 87, or presents a cohesive decision tree for determining the order of priority for conforming.

I for one am perfectly happy with going with the current examples of play when determining when and how a battlegroup can and cannot conform. They are concise and straightforward. And they provide excellent guidance to the meaning of "move the shortest distance necessary..."
Namely: "A battlegroup in contact with the enemy is required to shift and or pivot each of it's bases in contact to line up in either full front edge contact with the enemy base or valid overlap position that would be reached by the shortest measurable move and remains in place if this move is not physically possible."

This is the definition that is illustrated by the diagram on page 87.

[Ghaznavid]

Easy solution is to leave deployment of a Road until last.
Alternative is to allow most / any terrain to be superimposed on a Road.

But the rule writers, or at least Si, said it was left in knowing this would happen. In the lists armies are given the terrain types prevalent in their base area. Not the terrain they prefer to fight in. Hence some nearly all mounted armies get crap terrain for mounted.

That it was left in intentionally doesn't mean it is not broken (or at least dubious). I play lots of mounted armies and never so far used a road to prevent terrain placement. Still it's only a handful of games where I found the terrain to much. Using roads and perhaps also rivers would reduce this even further. Even mounted armies should not be guaranteed perfect battlefield conditions every time IMO.