Slitherine

ravenflight wrote:I'd say that's what you'd call 'overwhelming support'

Certainly looks like its worth asking the powers that be about this - but as the earliest I can do that is next week there is time for any objections to be raised so if anyone is anti please speak up.

My request would be to up the pts for superiors/elites...


Or limit the selection % of the army....

I'm guessing that I can take that as a "yes" to the question.

Yes. And three more yeses from members of my group who don't have accounts on this board.

OK folks many thanks. I think I can safely say that players are in favour so I will approach the powers that be.

nikgaukroger wrote:OK folks many thanks. I think I can safely say that players are in favour so I will approach the powers that be.

I take back my agreement, and formally protest... if for no other reason than to make it OTHER than unanimous, but more than likely because I'm a pain in the arse

I would like to agree with Ravenflight being a pain in the arse.

marshalney2000 wrote:I would like to agree with Ravenflight being a pain in the arse.

Firstly we have a tradition in Scotland of wishing all our friends A Happy New Year! so please allow me to do this forthwith.

Ravenflight
I am sure that we can that agree John is not a pain, just an ....

Nik et al
Would it be helpful if folks were to trial the potential revised point system in the other thread for a few months and let you have feedback based on what they find? Ditto the option to remove seized artillery?

Have a great wargaming 2015 everyone.

Hunter

spotteddog wrote: Nik et al
Would it be helpful if folks were to trial the potential revised point system in the other thread for a few months and let you have feedback based on what they find? Ditto the option to remove seized artillery?

I would not object and, should the powers be amenable, it may turn out useful.

Mind you I always say that people should do what they think is best for their players in any comp - the authors have no veto over that, only over what is "official"

We've tried not removing artillery since the rules came out. It's probably the single most common cause of queries. I don't think we need to try it any more. I think you should go with what you've got on the errata front, we've never added specific playtesting before and the discussion/playtest/more discussion steps for Fog AM V2 seemed interminable.

marshalney2000 wrote:I would like to agree with Ravenflight being a pain in the arse.

Excuse me... I resemble that remark!

nikgaukroger wrote:Mind you I always say that people should do what they think is best for their players in any comp - the authors have no veto over that, only over what is "official"

I understand that... and that's part of the problem, if it's not "official" you'll always get people who disagree. I mean you get people who disagree even when it is official (and I'm one of the pain in the arse (q.v.) who speak loudest about it), but at least play to the rules they disagree with.

At MOAB I made the error of forgetting to bring this problem to the players attention in the pre-game briefing, so we had one person object most strongly that if we made this change that we wouldn't be playing to the rules unless it was in an official errata.

I can understand that viewpoint, but I also don't think the situation has come up for him to have the problem fully smack him in the face.

What I'll do is bring it to everyones attention in an e-mail in about a week outlining what my rule amendment will be, and also why. People can then object etc, but will ultimately know well ahead of time what the solution is.

Mr Pain in the Arse is correct. Individual competitions having their own rules is confusing for players and can lead to the kind of disputes mentioned. Where we have added variance is in the theme by imposing restrictions on army selection.

kevinj wrote:Mr Pain in the Arse is correct.

... at least you're polite about it.

If this is done in a defined, sensible process that will be sanctioned and supported that is a good thing.
But the parameters need to be clear and the time table should be specific and nearly unalterable.
If this is a feel good goat hike it will merely serve to kill these rules.

hazelbark wrote:If this is done in a defined, sensible process that will be sanctioned and supported that is a good thing.
But the parameters need to be clear and the time table should be specific and nearly unalterable.
If this is a feel good goat hike it will merely serve to kill these rules.

Good point. I would prefer to see the rules remain as they are than alter the points and break the rules. I definitely think that there are points problems, mostly with 2dice mounted and lance armed cavalry, but there may be other problems.

Another vote for an Errata Sheet.

HI Nik
Any traction under the remove artillery and cost sup unarm det horse at 16?
HH

Hi fellahs
anyone know if there's likely to be any movement on any of this pre britcon?
HH

Unlikely anything from the authors in suitable time for Britcon - assuming anything official is going to happen