Page 2 of 2
Re: Target Priority when shooting.
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:36 pm
by Strategos69
ShrubMiK wrote:But I'm saying they are, effectively, paid for in points when you consider the cost of the generals required to provide the same level of command ability. Whether it is enough to offset worries about over-effectiveness of smaller BGs is another matter, but the effect is there.
There are some issues, in my mind, with the whole generals thing in the rules, I think there is a lot of room for improvement. I did argue once that there should be a maximum number of BGs in an army determined by adding up the command ability of all the generals, with FCs and ICs allowing more BGs in the army. And that would also provide more of a reason to see some FCs on the table more than once every blue moon!
I don't disagree: maybe I was just putting the accent in a different aspect.
I totally agree that FoG lacks of a structure of command and system like the one you propose for generals would help in that regard, avoiding the tricky splitting of BG's (which, in my opinion, it is too open for many gamey things) or giving importance to having good generals.
Re: Target Priority when shooting.
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:12 am
by philqw78
Strategos69 wrote:the tricky splitting of BG's (which, in my opinion, it is too open for many gamey things)
I think any alternative would be even more 'gamey' and open to abuse.
"Well I can have that one that one and that one shoot at him 'cos he's fragmanted, those two shoot him and that means nobody has to shoot the heavily armoured guys directly in front of them."
Is the alternative scenario.
Re: Target Priority when shooting.
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:56 pm
by Strategos69
philqw78 wrote:Strategos69 wrote:the tricky splitting of BG's (which, in my opinion, it is too open for many gamey things)
I think any alternative would be even more 'gamey' and open to abuse.
"Well I can have that one that one and that one shoot at him 'cos he's fragmanted, those two shoot him and that means nobody has to shoot the heavily armoured guys directly in front of them."
Is the alternative scenario.
You are right: choosing is not a good option. I was thinking on +1 for death rolls when 2 wide, +2 3 wide and +3 when 4 wide or more, similar what it has been said before. Besides that every BG should have a basic cost, but that means talking about the devil.
Re: Target Priority when shooting.
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:46 pm
by philqw78
Strategos69 wrote:. Besides that every BG should have a basic cost, but that means talking about the devil.
In the opinion of the authors it would be selling your soul to the devil.
Re: Target Priority when shooting.
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:45 pm
by KiwiWarlord
philqw78 wrote:Strategos69 wrote:the tricky splitting of BG's (which, in my opinion, it is too open for many gamey things)
I think any alternative would be even more 'gamey' and open to abuse.
"Well I can have that one that one and that one shoot at him 'cos he's fragmanted, those two shoot him and that means nobody has to shoot the heavily armoured guys directly in front of them."
Is the alternative scenario.
I disagree as an archer base would have two targets directly in front and must shoot at one, the fact that the shooter could choose to bring an extra base into the firefight against one enemy BG would not be 'gamey'.
Another option would be for MF Bow to have a flee option, quite historical and a good enough chance of being caught to make it interesting.