Slitherine

hammy wrote: I have managed 13 BGs and IC and 2 TCs at 650 points with BGs of 10,10,8,8,8,8,8,6,6,6,6,6,4

Oh no!

He's veering back towards the "dice roll" thing again !

Run for cover!

madaxeman wrote:

hammy wrote: I have managed 13 BGs and IC and 2 TCs at 650 points with BGs of 10,10,8,8,8,8,8,6,6,6,6,6,4

Oh no!

He's veering back towards the "dice roll" thing again !

Run for cover!

Tim, if my dice rolled like that I would be more than happy

Tim, if my dice rolled like that I would be more than happy

If your dice rolled 10s and 8s people might want to take a look at them!

lots of people wrote:" doth protest too much".

The game has been going a couple of years. I don't use swarms, I don't use loads of crap filler or loads of LH. I don't think they are a massive problem either. They are valid tactics (though some only with the lists as given).

In fact I quite like it when Dave sets up in front of me with all his LH (choose either Dave here) I force him into corners where he has nowhere to go, I take him from the rear, and then put the apple in his mouth and................well enough of that.

Just because your favorite heavy foot army has a hard time winning tough. Should other armies be hobbled. No. Learn your army better. Adjust your tactics. Change your army. If all you are interested in is winning competitions there will be no pleasing you anyway. (Some of the most miserable people I have ever met win a lot of competitions.) In an even points game there are going to be many draws. Its unavoidable. But todays culture always means its someone else's fault.

The only thing I would change to address the perceived LH/skirmisher problem is 2 AP for evading off table.

The only thing I would change to address the perceived LH/skirmisher problem is 2 AP for evading off table.

I agree, IMHO it's the only unbalancing point with the low price of drilled troops.

philqw78 wrote: In fact I quite like it when Dave sets up in front of me with all his LH (choose either Dave here) I force him into corners where he has nowhere to go, I take him from the rear, and then put the apple in his mouth and................well enough of that.

We get that from a man who when faced by my very very girly Kimmerians at Warfare last year more or less didn't come out to play Didn't follow your own advice there Phil

BTW I do think your advice has merits and a number of people go into games thinking they cannot possibly win it, however, even then I think ther are issues that can be usefully addressed.

The only thing I would change to address the perceived LH/skirmisher problem is 2 AP for evading off table.

That goes without saying - no brainer change IMO.

nikgaukroger wrote: We get that from a man who when faced by my very very girly Kimmerians at Warfare last year more or less didn't come out to play Didn't follow your own advice there Phil

Your not called Dave and I had a load of girl cavalry with no lances. Again in an even point game you are going to get draws. And you were the one with all the LH in that game, and you are complaining. So, QED, it cuts both ways.

If I'd had a few more beers the night before it could have been a very different game.

philqw78 wrote:

lots of people wrote:" doth protest too much".

The game has been going a couple of years. I don't use swarms, I don't use loads of crap filler or loads of LH. I don't think they are a massive problem either. They are valid tactics (though some only with the lists as given).

In fact I quite like it when Dave sets up in front of me with all his LH (choose either Dave here) I force him into corners where he has nowhere to go, I take him from the rear, and then put the apple in his mouth and................well enough of that.

Just because your favorite heavy foot army has a hard time winning tough. Should other armies be hobbled. No. Learn your army better. Adjust your tactics. Change your army. If all you are interested in is winning competitions there will be no pleasing you anyway. (Some of the most miserable people I have ever met win a lot of competitions.) In an even points game there are going to be many draws. Its unavoidable. But todays culture always means its someone else's fault.

The only thing I would change to address the perceived LH/skirmisher problem is 2 AP for evading off table.

I know what you mean Dave and yes, if you have a cavalry army, for example, you can run down skirmishers. 4MU troops can just about do it if you get a move on. It's a shame though about armies with a good proportion of HF. Not only don't they get enough time vs girl armies but it's terribly dull too. It means there are lots of the armies I like that i can't really take to a competition - shades of DBM really.

nikgaukroger wrote:BTW I do think your advice has merits and a number of people go into games thinking they cannot possibly win it, however, even then I think ther are issues that can be usefully addressed.

I am constantly amazed by the number of heavy foor armies that I see deploying with their infantry at full depth when they are facing skirmish armies. If you are going to beat a skirmish army you have to contain it or catch it. Heavy foot are never going to catch skirmishers but if they deply wide they can contain.

Dave R's advice on Lydians and using 3 BGs of armoured foot deployed in a single rank to cover a huge chunk of the table is very sound advice.

To me it seems that many people with pike armies for example have only got one plan and that will only work against other heavy foot armies.

hammy wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:BTW I do think your advice has merits and a number of people go into games thinking they cannot possibly win it, however, even then I think ther are issues that can be usefully addressed.

I am constantly amazed by the number of heavy foor armies that I see deploying with their infantry at full depth when they are facing skirmish armies. If you are going to beat a skirmish army you have to contain it or catch it. Heavy foot are never going to catch skirmishers but if they deply wide they can contain.

Dave R's advice on Lydians and using 3 BGs of armoured foot deployed in a single rank to cover a huge chunk of the table is very sound advice.

To me it seems that many people with pike armies for example have only got one plan and that will only work against other heavy foot armies.

Will work against a pure skirmish army (unless the enemy get lucky) but most girl armies have a bit of grit in them - 2-3 BGs of knight for example. Then undrilled foot are in trouble if they do this.

philqw78 wrote:The only thing I would change to address the perceived LH/skirmisher problem is 2 AP for evading off table.

We are currently considering a package as follows:
1) No wheels (or double wheels) > total of 90 degrees.
2) No extra turn to avoid evading off table.
3) 2 APs lost for evading off any table edge other than own rear edge.
4) 1 AP lost for evading off own rear table edge.

Seems a reasonable package. What timescales are you looking at? I presume this would be in the form of an errata, or would this be v2.0?

dave_r wrote:Seems a reasonable package. What timescales are you looking at? I presume this would be in the form of an errata, or would this be v2.0?

V2.0. Timescale uncertain but we have entered discussions.

We don't plan to sneak rule changes in as errata.

rbodleyscott wrote: 2) No extra turn to avoid evading off table.

I assume you mean the turn to go along the table edge?

rbodleyscott wrote: 3) 2 APs lost for evading off any table edge other than own rear edge.
4) 1 AP lost for evading off own rear table edge.

I'd prefer 2AP off own rear edge too. My reasoning would be that whilst historically it would be hard for a "heavy" army to catch and beat a skirmishing army, Romans versus Parthians being the classic example, their objective to "win" the battle is to drive the skirmishers from the battlefield. 2AP makes it this objective more achievable, although it's still hard work. Any mistake or disruption in the heavy army is very exploitable by the skirmishers and the heavy army has to be very aggressive.

grahambriggs wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

lots of people wrote:" doth protest too much".

The only thing I would change to address the perceived LH/skirmisher problem is 2 AP for evading off table.

I know what you mean Dave and yes,

I know what you mean too Helen. But it is impossible to make every army competetive in every situation.

philqw78 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: We get that from a man who when faced by my very very girly Kimmerians at Warfare last year more or less didn't come out to play Didn't follow your own advice there Phil

Your not called Dave and I had a load of girl cavalry with no lances. Again in an even point game you are going to get draws. And you were the one with all the LH in that game, and you are complaining.

Yeah - complaining you didn't follow your own advice on how to take on the girly LH but instead hunkered down

Glass houses, stones

Actually I was quite surprised that game turned out as it did - I expected more action in a game against you. Mind you I should have flank marched for the 3rd time that weekend

rbodleyscott wrote:

philqw78 wrote:The only thing I would change to address the perceived LH/skirmisher problem is 2 AP for evading off table.

We are currently considering a package as follows:
1) No wheels (or double wheels) > total of 90 degrees.
2) No extra turn to avoid evading off table.
3) 2 APs lost for evading off any table edge other than own rear edge.
4) 1 AP lost for evading off own rear table edge.

Drop 4, just go for 2AP for any table edge IMO.

2 could be interesting.

How about 6MU move for LH? And indeed those other changes we put in FoG:R?

nikgaukroger wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

philqw78 wrote:The only thing I would change to address the perceived LH/skirmisher problem is 2 AP for evading off table.

We are currently considering a package as follows:
1) No wheels (or double wheels) > total of 90 degrees.
2) No extra turn to avoid evading off table.
3) 2 APs lost for evading off any table edge other than own rear edge.
4) 1 AP lost for evading off own rear table edge.

Drop 4, just go for 2AP for any table edge IMO.

I agree with this as well. The "win" for the HF army taking the risk of going one deep against LH should be that if they push them off the back edge of the table they win.

I think 2 is helpful as well in a couple of ways. It makes skirmishing a bit more dangerous and it also makes the game less fiddly. The turns at the side edge are hard to measure and a bit non-inuitive when they happen, just eliminating this option not only helps against skirmishers it makes the game easier to play as well.

nikgaukroger wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

philqw78 wrote:The only thing I would change to address the perceived LH/skirmisher problem is 2 AP for evading off table.

We are currently considering a package as follows:
1) No wheels (or double wheels) > total of 90 degrees.
2) No extra turn to avoid evading off table.
3) 2 APs lost for evading off any table edge other than own rear edge.
4) 1 AP lost for evading off own rear table edge.

Drop 4, just go for 2AP for any table edge IMO.

2 could be interesting.

How about 6MU move for LH? And indeed those other changes we put in FoG:R?

I agree with nick drop LH to 6MU
and medium foot to 3MU
Should make the game more tighter.
2 points for the rear edge is fine.
Not keen on double moves for mounted of any kind.

rbodleyscott wrote:

dave_r wrote:Seems a reasonable package. What timescales are you looking at? I presume this would be in the form of an errata, or would this be v2.0?

V2.0. Timescale uncertain but we have entered discussions.

We don't plan to sneak rule changes in as errata.

Dang...will this really mean another version/copy of the rules? Couldn't some of the things being considered be done through a 'clarification?'