Slitherine

I reckon owner of the pinning BGs chooses which the enmey must react to is best. Rewards aggression.

= space
= Pinning BG facing down
= Pinning BG facing right
= pinned HF victim

If is just at 2 MU (i.e., max RA range), it seems that the pinner's option rule would lead to some gimmickry. Can the pinner change RA priority from turn to turn? Put the victim at an angle, and the RA swaps could keep him turning to conform back and forth. I suppose it can always charge, but the pinner's option concept has a bit of reek to it IMO.

A more objective priority seems better. Most directly to front? Closest? Mutual RAs trump unilateral RAs? Something to keep player discretion (either side) from finding some obnoxious stunts.

grahambriggs wrote:

david53 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: You think it sensible that drilled MF pinned front and flank by lancers have more options than those pinned to the front only? Why?

But why did the Lancers move within 2mu you can measure in FOG and to be honest its not hard to just pin them with one unit done it myself many times. As I said it just makes it more complex were it only takes a bit of thinking to stop it happening and save making more rules to learn.

Because when you play a beginner it seems daft and put them off when you do your cheesy move?

Might just have played as many as you have, since it is written in rules plain and simple or so I thought how is it then cheesy....

david53 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: Because when you play a beginner it seems daft and put them off when you do your cheesy move?

Might just have played as many as you have, since it is written in rules plain and simple or so I thought how is it then cheesy....

It's cheesy because it's a bad rule, not because it is unclear. A player from another rule set (i.e. knows ancients but new to FoG) will pin my Immortals from front and flank. I say "ha ha ha" and do my 'turn and move sideways' reacting to the pin from the flank to get out of charge reach.

It's clearly stupid; Immortals would never be able to do that. They formed the mantlet-wall and fought frontally. Perhaps they are wrongly classified but even as drilled HF they could get away.

So my opponent might grumble off saying "and I thought my old rule set was cheesy"

spikemesq wrote:






= space
= Pinning BG facing down
= Pinning BG facing right
= pinned HF victim

If is just at 2 MU (i.e., max RA range), it seems that the pinner's option rule would lead to some gimmickry. Can the pinner change RA priority from turn to turn? Put the victim at an angle, and the RA swaps could keep him turning to conform back and forth. I suppose it can always charge, but the pinner's option concept has a bit of reek to it IMO.

A more objective priority seems better. Most directly to front? Closest? Mutual RAs trump unilateral RAs? Something to keep player discretion (either side) from finding some obnoxious stunts.

An option of the "pinned" does not lead to gimmickry? Such as this case...

viewtopic.php?t=21090&start=0

For the case you've given, the pinned unit does not have to conform. If it does choose to conform it must conform to the BG with the designated RA but the enemy can't *make* it conform back and forth.

More serious is the problem of a BG with units within 2" on 3 sides. The opposing player can prevent the BG extricating itself via the 4th side. You can sort of trap a BG now but you can only do so if you move units in from 2 or 4 sides. If you use 3 sides, the pinned BG can choose the middle RA and leave via the 4th side. However, by using units from opposite sides that are lined up you can prevent the pinned BG from escaping. However, have an offset such as described in the link, they can slip slide away.

However, "closest and then most directly to the front if equal distance" is a possibility. It's a little more complicated but it is already used for target priorities for shooting.

shadowdragon wrote:More serious is the problem of a BG with units within 2" on 3 sides. The opposing player can prevent the BG extricating itself via the 4th side. You can sort of trap a BG now but you can only do so if you move units in from 2 or 4 sides. If you use 3 sides, the pinned BG can choose the middle RA and leave via the 4th side. However, by using units from opposite sides that are lined up you can prevent the pinned BG from escaping. However, have an offset such as described in the link, they can slip slide away.

So are you saying:

pinned from two opposite sides = no escape as per the current rules
pinned from 2 opposite sides and a third side = escape possible as per the current rules

and this is not a problem?

BUT

pinned from two opposite sides = no escape as per the current rules
pinned from 2 opposite sides and a third side = still no escape

would be a problem?


Personally I think if you invest 3 BG against one and manage to trap it on three sides you deserve to get some benefit.

However, "closest and then most directly to the front if equal distance" is a possibility. It's a little more complicated but it is already used for target priorities for shooting.

it's more complicated and still doesn't handle situations where they are equidistant and equally in front.

it's more complicated and still doesn't handle situations where they are equidistant and equally in front.

In that limited case, the pinned probably could suffer both RAs.

lawrenceg wrote:Personally I think if you invest 3 BG against one and manage to trap it on three sides you deserve to get some benefit.

What I meant was what you wrote that more BG should provide a benefit. So, if you can escape from 3 BG (on 3 sides) then you should be able to escape from 2 BG (on opposite)....or, if you can be trapped by 2 BG (on opposite sides) then adding a BG to the 3rd side should not then give you the option to escape.

Right now, you need to be careful with the geometry - even with BG's on all 4 sides - to prevent "pinned" BG slipping away.

spikemesq wrote:If is just at 2 MU (i.e., max RA range), it seems that the pinner's option rule would lead to some gimmickry. Can the pinner change RA priority from turn to turn? Put the victim at an angle, and the RA swaps could keep him turning to conform back and forth. I suppose it can always charge, but the pinner's option concept has a bit of reek to it IMO.

A more objective priority seems better. Most directly to front? Closest? Mutual RAs trump unilateral RAs? Something to keep player discretion (either side) from finding some obnoxious stunts.

You cannot force anybody to move this way or that. They could sit still. Letting the pinner choose will encourage aggressive play and serve you right for getting stuck in that stupid situation. If all you can offer is I may have to face one and then the other, or charge, its a pretty poor argument. You may be able to wheel in the charge as well to contact both.

And what the F does "Mutual RAs trump unilateral RAs" mean?

grahambriggs wrote:

david53 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: Because when you play a beginner it seems daft and put them off when you do your cheesy move?

Might just have played as many as you have, since it is written in rules plain and simple or so I thought how is it then cheesy....

It's cheesy because it's a bad rule, not because it is unclear. A player from another rule set (i.e. knows ancients but new to FoG) will pin my Immortals from front and flank. I say "ha ha ha" and do my 'turn and move sideways' reacting to the pin from the flank to get out of charge reach.

It's clearly stupid; Immortals would never be able to do that. They formed the mantlet-wall and fought frontally. Perhaps they are wrongly classified but even as drilled HF they could get away.

So my opponent might grumble off saying "and I thought my old rule set was cheesy"

But that seems odd then, lets say a new player was shocked if you could'nt deploy 240 paces from the middle of the table with FOG would he be silly for not reading the rules or the rules writer for getting you to deploy 10mu from the table and not 240 paces.

Would'nt just stopping foot from turning and moving be a lot simpler, then your imortals would'nt be able to get away and would have to stay were they are.

lawrenceg wrote:
Personally I think if you invest 3 BG against one and manage to trap it on three sides you deserve to get some benefit.

2 attrition points would be good after your hard work.