Slitherine

The current terrain system is totally variable. You can have an empty table or a table full of terrain, and everything in between - and this is influenced by the choices both players make. Other rules allow a defender to create an impregnable position which just results in a non-game. Steppes can sometimes end up with more terrain than Agricultural. Why does this need a radical re-think?

It is totally variable, Pete, and that's where I see the problem. An infantry army facing mounted is usually going to pick as many pieces as possible but they're placed very randomly. Even with re-positioning rolls it often results in a very cluttered battlefield. What about having less pieces (1 + 1 - 3) but allowing each player to add or subtract up to one on any positioning roll for one piece? That would give players more of a chance to pick something like a favourable position without resulting in one which can't be attacked...

Expect the final proposals to be slightly different. Revisions to be tested at the BHGS Doubles so we will get some practical live testing.

Phil's neat suggestion/solution taken on board.

petedalby wrote: Phil's neat suggestion/solution taken on board.

You lot should have listened 5 years ago

Revisions to be tested at the BHGS Doubles so we will get some practical live testing.

Did this happen and, if so, what was the general opinion on the changes?

Not sure why after winning the initiative you cannot hand it back if you have an army that wants to gain ground to fall back on. So another chance to go first, even having won the initiative, would be my choice:

A) Dice again after deployment, with the better quality commander getting a +1 .... Highest moves first.

No needs to chance anything here !

Vespasian28 wrote:Not sure why after winning the initiative you cannot hand it back if you have an army that wants to gain ground to fall back on. So another chance to go first, even having won the initiative, would be my choice:

A) Dice again after deployment, with the better quality commander getting a +1 .... Highest moves first.

So the Huns invading the Roman Empire would fall back half a continent to the steppes just for a tactical advantage in one battle? Unlikely, it seems to me.

grahambriggs wrote: So the Huns invading the Roman Empire would fall back half a continent to the steppes just for a tactical advantage in one battle? Unlikely, it seems to me.

But the battle of catalunian Plains was just that, there was practically no terrain even though it was in Western Europe

Whilst I can see the reasoning behind limiting terrain choice to what's available in your opponent's list, I can see some problems arising.

Pick an IC, which will improve your chances of winning initiative (or simply win initiative) and you could find yourself playing into your opponent's hands. Pick a fight with Early Alan; Skythian/Saka; Mongol Conquest; Mongol Invasion or some Early (or Later) Horse Nomads and you'll find yourself fighting in Steppes - like it or not. Hardly an inspired choice!

There are problems with other enemies, too. With some Pre-Islamic Bedouins and most Early Nomads you get either Desert or Steppes; post 650 Early Welsh, Early Highland Raider or Urartian - only Hilly or Mountains.

There are quite a few other lists where your choices are far from ideal. Would some armies be happy with only Hills, Mountains, Woodlands or Tropical to choose from?

Hardly taking the initiative, is it?

As the lists are being amalgamated and re-published hopefully we might see more variety for those lists which are currently restricted to just 1 terrain type.

Pick an IC, which will improve your chances of winning initiative (or simply win initiative) and you could find yourself playing into your opponent's hands. Pick a fight with Early Alan; Skythian/Saka; Mongol Conquest; Mongol Invasion or some Early (or Later) Horse Nomads and you'll find yourself fighting in Steppes - like it or not. Hardly an inspired choice!

All of those armies will start with an initiative of 2 plus their CinC.
If he chooses a TC you could have a higher initiative if you've chosen at least 12 mounted (3 vs 2).
This gives you a 2:1 chance of fighting in their terrain.
However, you also have a 2:1 chance of moving first - which will mean that you could be half way across the table before they can pin you back (assuming you use your few skirmisher correctly). That's not a situation that most mounted armies would want to deal with.

This is a better situation than at present, where these armies can almost guarantee playing in steppe.
I've rarely had a problem when fighting in agricultural or developed with a mounted army. (don't like Tropical though).

Hopefully the Urartian terrain choice will get better. Though your theory above means they'd best take an IC and win initiative so they can get out of their own terrain

terrys wrote:SETUP and DEPLOYMENT

Current Proposals (Sept. 2016)
NB. Rules remain as in V2 unless changed as below:

We have quite polarised views on who goes first.
(A) forces you to deploy without knowing who goes first - Which some players don't like.
(B) is the same as V2 ..... But without the choice of handing the initiative over.
We'd like players to try (A) first - since that's the different rule. Let us know which you prefer?

We have played this as in case (A) for 20 games now. I like this rule as it stands. I am sure most min/max tourney players will hate it and for them you can have option (B) for tournament play I guess. Honestly I think not know who goes first requires you to plan better and makes you better at playing the game overall.

Just my 2 cents.

Ravensworth wrote: Honestly I think not know who goes first requires you to plan better and makes you better at playing the game overall.
Just my 2 cents.

Which surely makes for better tournament results if the better play is rewarded

philqw78 wrote:

Ravensworth wrote: Honestly I think not know who goes first requires you to plan better and makes you better at playing the game overall.
Just my 2 cents.

Which surely makes for better tournament results if the better play is rewarded

My thoughts exactly. V2 went too far in punishing shooty cav armies causing them to almost completely disappear in tournaments in the GCC. The better players in V1 adapted their tactics with foot armies to win, which in my opinion, was what should happen.

The change under (A) is a good one and reduces a predictability that we already had.