Summary of Proposed Changes

[Strategos69]

21. Rear Support:
i. More than half an extra rank of bases beyond those that can normally contribute to melee combat (by dice or creating a POA) counts as rear support for Undrilled troops only.


So...undrilled Spanish in a 6pak, 2 wide, gives itself support even with a base loss? But an 8pak, 3 wide (2 in third rank) will lose the self-support upon a base loss?

It says more than half. 1 is only the half, so not more than half. As I will be trying it I will remember, but this is the kind of thing that people tend to forget (it will be applied it there is at least any base not fighting) or confuse new players. I like the mechanism though. Even if more restrictive, complete lines seems simpler. In general I like the changes, especially the adoption of second lines and limitation of columns. And drilled and undrilled have more marked differences in the way you can play them, which is good. Let's see how it turns.

Note: as a non native speaker sometimes I have to fight with the English of the proposed changes as much as with some high complexity game theory papers I have to read from time to time. Just a thought...

[ethan]

2. Maximum army break point of total points/50. [This could be 60 if 50 is not thought stringent enough, but 50 is an easier calculation]

There are other ways to get a similar calculation to 60.

Something like:

Army break point maximum is:

11 + 1 per 100AP over 600.

This gets you

600AP army is 11
700AP army is 12
800AP army is 13
900AP army is 14

Compared to divide by 60:

600 is 10
700 is 11
800 is 13
900 is 15

Divide by 50 is

600 is 12
700 is 14
800 is 16
900 is 18

[philqw78]

Lets wait till we have the real rules and wordings before picking this apart. I imagine this is not the actual document and just RBS giving us something to think about while we wait on JDM.

The real words will come from Richard, Terry and Simon*1. JD will just sell them to us.


*1. Catflap, Filthy and Rich*2
*2. I am prepared for this to be edited out.

[timmy1]

Ethan,

Lets stick to divide by 50. Even I can do that in my head. ;)

[david53]

Looks like some very good changes. It will be interesting to see how these work out through the testing.

Knee jerk reactions from gamers named "Dave" are just an added bonus.

I sense an anti Dave theme running here I just said what thousands were thinking

[waldo]

9. Armoured knights move 5 MUs in open. [Needs to also go in QRS]

19. Shooting POAs changed: [Need to also go in QRS].
i. Shooting POA vs Unprotected Cavalry not in 1 rank reduced to +
ii. Shooting POA vs Protected Cavalry not in 1 rank removed.
iii. Shooting POA vs Armoured Cavalry not in 1 rank, and Armoured knights removed. [Note that it would be illogical to keep this for longbows if losing the + POA for bows vs Protected Cavalry. They had it before because of armour-piercing capability, not because of superior rate of fire over other bows.]

So Armoured knights become longbow killers? Interesting why the Welsh came up with a longbow 50 years before there was a need for it...ahead of their time.

From the games I have played and seen it hasn't seemed that MF bow/longbow are some super troop needing to be de-powered.

Walter

[david53]

9. Armoured knights move 5 MUs in open. [Needs to also go in QRS]

19. Shooting POAs changed: [Need to also go in QRS].
i. Shooting POA vs Unprotected Cavalry not in 1 rank reduced to +
ii. Shooting POA vs Protected Cavalry not in 1 rank removed.
iii. Shooting POA vs Armoured Cavalry not in 1 rank, and Armoured knights removed. [Note that it would be illogical to keep this for longbows if losing the + POA for bows vs Protected Cavalry. They had it before because of armour-piercing capability, not because of superior rate of fire over other bows.]

So Armoured knights become longbow killers? Interesting why the Welsh came up with a longbow 50 years before there was a need for it...ahead of their time.

From the games I have played and seen it hasn't seemed that MF bow/longbow are some super troop needing to be de-powered.

Walter

Stick stakes in front of the longbows and allow them to hit Cavalry and armoured Knights on a 3 seems like super troops to me, BTW make them drilled so no worries about putting stakes down. Having overpowerful longbows pushed me out of medieviel games but thats just me.

[dave_r]

9. Armoured knights move 5 MUs in open. [Needs to also go in QRS]

19. Shooting POAs changed: [Need to also go in QRS].
i. Shooting POA vs Unprotected Cavalry not in 1 rank reduced to +
ii. Shooting POA vs Protected Cavalry not in 1 rank removed.
iii. Shooting POA vs Armoured Cavalry not in 1 rank, and Armoured knights removed. [Note that it would be illogical to keep this for longbows if losing the + POA for bows vs Protected Cavalry. They had it before because of armour-piercing capability, not because of superior rate of fire over other bows.]

So Armoured knights become longbow killers? Interesting why the Welsh came up with a longbow 50 years before there was a need for it...ahead of their time.

From the games I have played and seen it hasn't seemed that MF bow/longbow are some super troop needing to be de-powered.

Walter

They are no different than Armoured Cavalry? Except they are more vulnerable to shooting, being wider.

It isn't about de-powering MF Longbow it is about uppowering Armoured Knights who at the moment are rarer than fairies.

[shadowdragon]

Looks like some very good changes. It will be interesting to see how these work out through the testing.

Knee jerk reactions from gamers named "Dave" are just an added bonus.

I sense an anti Dave theme running here I just said what thousands were thinking

OMG! There are thousands of "Daves" lurking on these boards.

Reminds me of the Dr. Seuss poem..."Too Many Daves"...

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~garden/seuss.html

That poem was part of the repertoire of the children's theatre group I was involved with while in university. I guess I have a thing about "Daves" every since. Having a brother named "Dave" probably didn't help either.

[shadowdragon]

I suppose the written rule will explain further, but I would think the column exception would apply to 2 paks of spear (e.g., Roman triarii). Otherwise they'd be faced with the choice of spear fighting in a single line or -1 for being in "column".

[Blathergut]

I would hope so! They are my favorite!!!

[Blathergut]

Well...next to 4pak velites that is!

[batesmotel]

It seems like this is a general reduction of shooting effects versus mounted. Unprotected and protected mounted look more viable now since they will have the same vulnerability against bows/slings/javelins as unprotected and protected foot. The longbow change just looks in line with that.

Chris

9. Armoured knights move 5 MUs in open. [Needs to also go in QRS]

19. Shooting POAs changed: [Need to also go in QRS].
i. Shooting POA vs Unprotected Cavalry not in 1 rank reduced to +
ii. Shooting POA vs Protected Cavalry not in 1 rank removed.
iii. Shooting POA vs Armoured Cavalry not in 1 rank, and Armoured knights removed. [Note that it would be illogical to keep this for longbows if losing the + POA for bows vs Protected Cavalry. They had it before because of armour-piercing capability, not because of superior rate of fire over other bows.]

So Armoured knights become longbow killers? Interesting why the Welsh came up with a longbow 50 years before there was a need for it...ahead of their time.

From the games I have played and seen it hasn't seemed that MF bow/longbow are some super troop needing to be de-powered.

Walter

They are no different than Armoured Cavalry? Except they are more vulnerable to shooting, being wider.

It isn't about de-powering MF Longbow it is about uppowering Armoured Knights who at the moment are rarer than fairies.

[david53]

It seems like this is a general reduction of shooting effects versus mounted. Unprotected and protected mounted look more viable now since they will have the same vulnerability against bows/slings/javelins as unprotected and protected foot. The longbow change just looks in line with that.

Chris

So Armoured knights become longbow killers? Interesting why the Welsh came up with a longbow 50 years before there was a need for it...ahead of their time.

From the games I have played and seen it hasn't seemed that MF bow/longbow are some super troop needing to be de-powered.

Walter

They are no different than Armoured Cavalry? Except they are more vulnerable to shooting, being wider.

It isn't about de-powering MF Longbow it is about uppowering Armoured Knights who at the moment are rarer than fairies.

The changes in turn and move will make shooty cavalry more viable now they can pull back a bit.

[rpayne]

One of my initial concerns, and like I've said I want to playtest it before whining too much (but they didn't let me in to the playtest group so OF COURSE now I'm whining) is elephants not being supportable by generals.

For western elephants this might make a decent deal of sense, but for eastern elephants it definitely does not.

Consider basically any of the eastern Elephant armies, the example we always use being Classical Indian.


In your standard Classical Indian army, your fighting force is 5-6 units of elephants, and 1-2 units of heavy chariots. VS say, Romans or Pike, you will try hard to only fight with these units, and keep all of your foot (unprotected) back for rear support and overlaps.

What are the generals supposed to do in such a situation? Obviously one hangs out with the chariots, but the rest are merely cheerleaders.

Normally, I will keep generals with elephants above all else, because those rerolls protect against freak accidents resulting in death rolls and the units exploding. Again, for a western army with one or two units of ellies this might seem a little gamey, but when you are running 300 points of the beasts and they are nearly the entire front line of your army, it becomes required.


It deserves playtesting, because while this weakens elephants in melee, the other changes have made them much scarier on impact (3 dice and an extra -1), and I need to see how that ends up. But I am slightly concerned that at the end of the day I will prefer the old elephants.

Could be that another beta test phase is going to work on how to integrate Ellies into the Eastern armies too. Who knows what the writers are brewing up.


The other ones I am slightly concerned about are the Longbow vs. Armored Knight bits, and the LH cohesion test for evading off table bits. I see the logic behind both, but feel in both cases they might be too severe a reaction.

LH got hit hard by this ruleset.

[david53]

LH cohesion test for evading off table bits. I see the logic behind both, but feel in both cases they might be too severe a reaction.

LH got hit hard by this ruleset.

To be honest some people might think I like LH as a troop type, maybe since I use them to some extent in most armies I field.(its a manchester thing)

I was expecting V2 to hit LH hard but TBH don't care too much about side table or turning and moving being cut down it is for all troop types or the CMT for evading of table, out of all my FOG games at most I've evaded some units in about four games.

What you lose in LH usage is more than made up for in movement for shooty cavalry which if the changes stay makes them much more viable than they were before.

So don't worry to much LH will still be around, somewhere.

[shadowdragon]

Just played out 3 Gallic vs LRR games:

Gauls had 4 TC, 6 X 12 warriors, 2 cavalry (one armoured) and 1 javelin while the Romans had 1 X IC, 2 X TC, 10 X 4 regular legions, 2 cavalry (both average / one armoured) and 1 javelin - just under 800 pts for each.

Gauls were deployed 4 wide X 3 deep and the Romans 2 X 2, which gives the Gauls an overlap on each end of the line.

I ignored the cavalry - assuming that the battle would eventually go to the Gauls but that it wouldn't be in time to significantly influence the infantry fight.

In all three games the Gauls didn't really come out of the impact phase with much of an advantage in any of the games. That was due to the Romans being lucky with their hits. What was important was that the Gauls didn't suffer from the Roman luck in the impact due to large units with a TC in the front rank for 4 out of the 6 warrior bands, rear support for a 3rd rank of warriors and superiors auto-breaking at 40% (2 vice 3 bases for a 4 pak). [Note that the Romans were stretched out and had no rear support advantage.] These advantages really seemed to help out with the melees.

The results were 2 to 1 for the Gauls. In the first game the Romans gained the initial melee advantage and slowly ground down the Gauls. In the second game both Roman flanks collapsing for a loss even though they managed to break the centre warrior band. The third game had a somewhat more confusing outcome but more or less went the way of the second.

Changes that really seemed to matter - the -1 for 2 hits per base in close combat (the Romans need 6 hits to get that -1 CT modifier inflicted on Gauls) and rear support for the 3rd rank of warriors.

Would have liked one of the impact fights to have gone the Gauls way to see how the fight would have gone, but....interesting.

I don't think the unit sizes were optimal for either side. The 4 paks for the legions had pluses and minuses, but they were a lot more fragile than the big Gallic warrior bands and I would try 6 paks as they would be more survivable. An option worth trying for the Gauls would be 10 paks with 3 ranks of 3 and a spare base which would mean they need to lose 3 bases to lose their rear support.

The biggest effect was that 4 base BG aren't the ultimate unit size they were before, which is a big positive. If this sees a trend to large units we might not need to maximum break point limit, but can't really tell from just this encounter.

[nikgaukroger]

The results were 2 to 1 for the Gauls. In the first game the Romans gained the initial melee advantage and slowly ground down the Gauls. In the second game both Roman flanks collapsing for a loss even though they managed to break the centre warrior band. The third game had a somewhat more confusing outcome but more or less went the way of the second.

So how did these games feel from an historical POV compared to v1 ?

[shadowdragon]

The results were 2 to 1 for the Gauls. In the first game the Romans gained the initial melee advantage and slowly ground down the Gauls. In the second game both Roman flanks collapsing for a loss even though they managed to break the centre warrior band. The third game had a somewhat more confusing outcome but more or less went the way of the second.

So how did these games feel from an historical POV compared to v1 ?

I would say, "ummm....yeah", but would probably like to play with BG sizes a bit and other tactical situations. I like that v2 makes large BG an attractive option as it eliminates the need to kill 3 bases out 4 to auto-break a superior 4 pak. The impact phases fizzled out in my games but that was luck. Given the closer matchup in melee, if the Gauls did win the impact with a reasonable result, they could roll over the Roman line. I deliberately set this up with the Roman line stretched and without any terrain benefit as I thought that should be a tough proposition for the Romans; and it was. Protecting flanks (to limit the advantage of numbers, rear support and terrain advantage all become important to beat the "barbarians" which does seem historical.

[batesmotel]

It seems like this is a general reduction of shooting effects versus mounted. Unprotected and protected mounted look more viable now since they will have the same vulnerability against bows/slings/javelins as unprotected and protected foot. The longbow change just looks in line with that.

Chris

They are no different than Armoured Cavalry? Except they are more vulnerable to shooting, being wider.

It isn't about de-powering MF Longbow it is about uppowering Armoured Knights who at the moment are rarer than fairies.

The changes in turn and move will make shooty cavalry more viable now they can pull back a bit.

But it's really going to favor drilled shooty cavalry over undrilled with CMTs being required and drilled still passing CMTs on 7 vs 8 for undrilled. The 1 point extra for drilled cavalry is definitely a bargain at this point.

Chris