Slitherine

nikgaukroger wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:
If my opponent wants to exploit the edge of the world to eliminate one of his BGs and give me an AP, then he is welcome to do so.

As opposed to standing there and losing 2? Which would you chose?

I doubt that my opponent would have got into that situation with the intention of "exploiting the edge of the world". If he has paid for the capability of avoiding a broken unit by evading (where ever on the table he may be) then I don't see why he should not get some benefit from that, even at the edge of the world. If he deliberately exploits this by lining up his troops ready to evade off the table and waits for me to come and attack him, I'll gladly take the 1 point per BG.

If I rout a unit in the middle of the table, my oponent may "exploit his commander" and rally them before they leave the table. I would choose for them to stay broken. Is reasonable for me to suggest the rules be changed in line with my preference to prevent this kind of exploitation?

lawrenceg wrote:
I doubt that my opponent would have got into that situation with the intention of "exploiting the edge of the world". If he has paid for the capability of avoiding a broken unit by evading (where ever on the table he may be) then I don't see why he should not get some benefit from that, even at the edge of the world. If he deliberately exploits this by lining up his troops ready to evade off the table and waits for me to come and attack him, I'll gladly take the 1 point per BG.

I doubt anyone would do it from the start but as something that emerges during a game it is not, in my experience, too uncommon for it to become the best option to be in a position to leave the table. A minority of games, but a noticable one never the less. Also it can be a way of pulling an enemy BG away from where it may be more useful by offering what looks like a cheap AP - alas better players spot when you're trying this gambit

If I rout a unit in the middle of the table, my oponent may "exploit his commander" and rally them before they leave the table. I would choose for them to stay broken. Is reasonable for me to suggest the rules be changed in line with my preference to prevent this kind of exploitation?

Now you're being silly - that is not comparing like with like.

Nik out of curiosity what shooty horse boy army(s) do you use or favour?

Keith

To date mainly Seljuqs and Mamluks, although I've used armies like Khurasanians that have a fair contingent of them as well.

I have used both Skythian and Parthian and regularly evade off table. About once every other game on average.

Losing one AP out of 17 BG's (800 pts) does not bother me in the slightest In fact, if two BG's evade of table that is only one point in the current scoring system.

I played a game against Tim Porter where he spent the entire game hunting down two BG's of LF only for me to have them evade off-table during the last turn of the game. Very frustrating.

Obviously as a girly light horse player I think the rules are fine as they are, but if I wasn't a girly LH player I would have a sense of frustration at pinning the slippery chaps down.

dave_r wrote: I played a game against Tim Porter where he spent the entire game hunting down two BG's of LF only for me to have them evade off-table during the last turn of the game. Very frustrating.
.

I was attempting to do a little more than this with my 800 points of Marian Romans, but in the end there wasn't actually much more that I felt was realistically achievable against your army composition

What about a sliding scale of AP for forced off the table. For example the first two BG's are 1 AP as now. The 3rd and subsequent BG's that the are pushed off count as 2 AP.

I know it's a little more complex but allows an advantage for pushing more BG's off the table and does allow for defeat by push off.

Just an random thought.

KISS IMO.

nikgaukroger wrote:KISS IMO.

QFT

rbodleyscott wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Why even 1.5, why not 2 like everything else?

Because then they would have an incentive to engage in a severely disadvantaged fight (and maybe get lucky) because they would have nothing to lose. This would not be historically realistic behaviour for the troops concerned.

Ah but staying and fighting runs the additional risk of units checking to see a rout.

You can always not bother to charge them if you don't want them to flee off table. Keep them pinned down and bring something to trap them. People can only evade off table IFF you charge them. So if the option of 1AP isn'yt to your liking don't charge them. If you have missile troops try trapping them and shoot them to routing.

Of course if using a HF army options will be wadly limited in such a match up. Single rank a few troops to encourage them to fight and to cover the table is the best I have found. FWIW. HArm billmen very handy for this....

Si

shall wrote:You can always not bother to charge them if you don't want them to flee off table. Keep them pinned down and bring something to trap them. People can only evade off table IFF you charge them. So if the option of 1AP isn'yt to your liking don't charge them. If you have missile troops try trapping them and shoot them to routing.

Of course if using a HF army options will be wadly limited in such a match up. Single rank a few troops to encourage them to fight and to cover the table is the best I have found. FWIW. HArm billmen very handy for this....

Si

Yes, but it is hardly comfort to someone with a foot/mixed army that has braved repeated bounds of shooting and hounded the LH to the edge of the world only to be told that they should have brought a different army

I use mixed armies and horsie armies. As the rules stand and with the scoring system favouring large BG armies, I'd only use the latter when I wanted to be competitive. The evading off table topic has been an issue in NZ since CTA 2008 and while I wouldn't advocate any unilateral rule changes it is heartening to see that it is being discussed and looked at in the UK as well.

I think CANCON is on this weekend and I pick Middle Hungarians and other horsie armies to do well.

Cheers,

Steve

Yes, but it is hardly comfort to someone with a foot/mixed army that has braved repeated bounds of shooting and hounded the LH to the edge of the world only to be told that they should have brought a different army

Naturally, but such army match issues are far from limited to this issue. Who fancies fighting armoured Romans with a foot bow army - not me. Massive problem for my HYW army for instance.

FWIW my sense is that large armies of evaders tend to survive quite well due to the evade of table option, but also tend to struggle to win big often as well. I find the balance quite decent at present.

Si

FWIW my sense is that large armies of evaders tend to survive quite well due to the evade of table option, but also tend to struggle to win big often as well. I find the balance quite decent at present.

This.....



I think when the people that use horse armies exclusively start running into opponents, or their current opponents use support properly, and they start getting lots of draws in tournaments and finishing middle of the pack, this problem will solve itself.

I play a horse army, and have won a decent amount of games, and in very few of my wins, has my opponent properly supported his units, or formed his pike in ways to minimize my shooty effectiveness.


Clay

shall wrote:

Yes, but it is hardly comfort to someone with a foot/mixed army that has braved repeated bounds of shooting and hounded the LH to the edge of the world only to be told that they should have brought a different army

Naturally, but such army match issues are far from limited to this issue. Who fancies fighting armoured Romans with a foot bow army - not me. Massive problem for my HYW army for instance.

FWIW my sense is that large armies of evaders tend to survive quite well due to the evade of table option, but also tend to struggle to win big often as well. I find the balance quite decent at present.

Si

This is even the case within book, even within actual historical match-ups-- Late Republican Romans vs. Parthians for instance. "Army match-issues", as Si put it, are always a consideration. Such is war--which is one reason why armies evolved

Dale