Slitherine

david53 wrote: Not keen on double moves for mounted of any kind.

Foot would be moving faster than mounted when 6MU away from the enemy!?!

Tying second and possibly a third movement to the type of general would be interesting from a command and control point of view. TCs having no second move, FCs a second move (might see more FCs then), and ICs maybe a third (and possibly a second of one BG when within 6 MU?). One would have to think more about how an army would work from a C&C point of view. If one wants to plod forward, take TCs, then FCs for a little bit of flexibility or a quicker point of attack, or if one wants grand sweeping manoeuvres, take an IC. (Bearing in mind it's proposed some movement distances are reduced).

Blathergut wrote:

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?'

I think this means they will say "We are changing the rules" in an official sense and just call it that. I am not sure it means there will be a new rulebook.

peterrjohnston wrote:

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

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

Yes

I agree with nick drop LH to 6MU
and medium foot to 3MU

Wasn't there some discusion about using these movement rates:

3 MF, HF
4 LF
4 CT, KN
5 CV
6 LH

Yes

peterrjohnston wrote:

david53 wrote: Not keen on double moves for mounted of any kind.

Foot would be moving faster than mounted when 6MU away from the enemy!?!

Tying second and possibly a third movement to the type of general would be interesting from a command and control point of view. TCs having no second move, FCs a second move (might see more FCs then), and ICs maybe a third (and possibly a second of one BG when within 6 MU?). One would have to think more about how an army would work from a C&C point of view. If one wants to plod forward, take TCs, then FCs for a little bit of flexibility or a quicker point of attack, or if one wants grand sweeping manoeuvres, take an IC. (Bearing in mind it's proposed some movement distances are reduced).

Like this idea as 80 points is a lot for a plus 2 on the dice so maybe more people would take an ic. The foot would then be able to move across the table quicker. The mounted could still avoid if required

ethan wrote:

Blathergut wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote: 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?'

I think this means they will say "We are changing the rules" in an official sense and just call it that. I am not sure it means there will be a new rulebook.

Sadly I disagree if its not a new rule book not everyone is on here or wants to be on and this was the problum with the other rules once you do amendments on line it becomes easy to do it that way without the thinking about all the changes at once and adding bits and pieces over a long time, this would kill the rules like some other sets no names mentioned. If there are changes to be made and I'm all for that but lets get them all done in one new set please.

david53 wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote: Tying second and possibly a third movement to the type of general would be interesting from a command and control point of view. TCs having no second move, FCs a second move (might see more FCs then), and ICs maybe a third (and possibly a second of one BG when within 6 MU?). One would have to think more about how an army would work from a C&C point of view. If one wants to plod forward, take TCs, then FCs for a little bit of flexibility or a quicker point of attack, or if one wants grand sweeping manoeuvres, take an IC. (Bearing in mind it's proposed some movement distances are reduced).

Like this idea as 80 points is a lot for a plus 2 on the dice so maybe more people would take an ic. The foot would then be able to move across the table quicker. The mounted could still avoid if required

Hmm, actually I think the incentives to take an IC are more then big enough already and I do see plenty of them on table; he does a lot more then just give you a +2 for the PBI after all (and the +2 for the PBI is just as much a deterrent as an incentive, depending on the army). FCs are a bit underrepresented though (and an FC CinC is extremely rare, cause if an FC is taken it is usually for flank marching, which the CinC can't do).

david53 wrote: Sadly I disagree if its not a new rule book not everyone is on here or wants to be on

I think in the year 2010 the internet is now pretty ubiquitous. People who are not able to find the Slitherine web site probably don't really care much about the rule changes, the FAQ, the errata, etc. I am willing to wager that everyone who plays in tournament (who this will effect the most) is on the web site, or can easily find the web site with a bit of prodding from tournament organizers. A simple "please note we will be using the 1.1 version of the rules, changes available at slitherine.com" is more than sufficient. We already do this with the FAQ, which is intergral to "high end" play and can only be found and accessed on the web (as well as the errata).

I agree that we don't want to get into a cycle of new rule changes coming up every couple of weeks, but that is up to the authors and is not that difficult to achieve.

ethan wrote:
I agree that we don't want to get into a cycle of new rule changes coming up every couple of weeks, but that is up to the authors and is not that difficult to achieve.

With all due respect to the rule writes just looking on the other site people can be pressured into changes, I for one got confused while there about the number of changes to rules using the internet. Yes its 2010 but i would rather again if theres to be rule changes for them all to be done together, to stop the same thing happening to FOG. Change all that needs it once and it will be far better than changing bits and pieces when fashions in wargaming change. Not against change but would hate to see FOG damaged. BTW its not all about compition players sure the majority of people play at club level.

I agree that we don't want to get into a cycle of new rule changes coming up every couple of weeks, but that is up to the authors and is not that difficult to achieve.

Agreed. There is a world of difference between occasional "Official" rule updates and constantly changing "Tournament Clarifications".

david53 wrote:

ethan wrote:
I agree that we don't want to get into a cycle of new rule changes coming up every couple of weeks, but that is up to the authors and is not that difficult to achieve.

With all due respect to the rule writes just looking on the other site people can be pressured into changes, I for one got confused while there about the number of changes to rules using the internet. Yes its 2010 but i would rather again if theres to be rule changes for them all to be done together, to stop the same thing happening to FOG. Change all that needs it once and it will be far better than changing bits and pieces when fashions in wargaming change. Not against change but would hate to see FOG damaged. BTW its not all about compition players sure the majority of people play at club level.

There are a number of easy solutions that essentially amount to chaining yourself to the mast of your ship to give it an ancients spin. The easiest would be for the author's to decare something like:

"Rule changes will be made no more than once per year and any such changes will be announced on or about Date X of each year." This should guarantee that we don't see anymore than yearly changes (obviously they can have twice a year, every two years or whatever and they don't need to make changes).

You could even elaborate to get something like this (and I am just picking a date at random):

"Proposed rule changes will be announced on June 1 of each year and will take effect (with possible modifications based on play-testing and feedback) on Dec 31 of the same year."

Gents,

I haven't played in a competition for 25 years, so I have no knowledge or experience concerning trends or phases with dominant army types. I would like someone with more relevant experience to possibly answer this one - is the perceived problem with LH/skirmisher type armies one that is confined to open competitions only, or do themed ones also "suffer" from the same problem?

TIA

ethan wrote: I think in the year 2010 the internet is now pretty ubiquitous. People who are not able to find the Slitherine web site probably don't really care much about the rule changes, the FAQ, the errata, etc. I am willing to wager that everyone who plays in tournament (who this will effect the most) is on the web site, or can easily find the web site with a bit of prodding from tournament organizers. A simple "please note we will be using the 1.1 version of the rules, changes available at slitherine.com" is more than sufficient. We already do this with the FAQ, which is intergral to "high end" play and can only be found and accessed on the web (as well as the errata).

Quite so. I'd suggest that the experience of DBM v3.1 shows that a major official rules update can be done electronically these days - that went pretty much as Ethan mentions. Albeit I'd expect FoG to be done with a more professional presentation. IMO the arguments against an electronic update are no longer credible in this hobby.

I agree that we don't want to get into a cycle of new rule changes coming up every couple of weeks, but that is up to the authors and is not that difficult to achieve.

I don't think we have anything to fear with this lot, especially with JD as an additional slowing factor, sorry quality control process If anything there may not be enough updates

Three wrote:Gents,

I haven't played in a competition for 25 years, so I have no knowledge or experience concerning trends or phases with dominant army types. I would like someone with more relevant experience to possibly answer this one - is the perceived problem with LH/skirmisher type armies one that is confined to open competitions only, or do themed ones also "suffer" from the same problem?

TIA

I believe it does. The Romans (and Seleucids) had the Parthians, Huns, etc. Chinese had an seemingly endless array of Northern Barbarians, etc.

ethan wrote:

Three wrote:Gents,

I haven't played in a competition for 25 years, so I have no knowledge or experience concerning trends or phases with dominant army types. I would like someone with more relevant experience to possibly answer this one - is the perceived problem with LH/skirmisher type armies one that is confined to open competitions only, or do themed ones also "suffer" from the same problem?

TIA

I believe it does. The Romans (and Seleucids) had the Parthians, Huns, etc. Chinese had an seemingly endless array of Northern Barbarians, etc.

It's not a end of the world as we know it problem, mainly an irritation in competitions, were one prefers, at least I do, wins, losses or hard fought draws. Otherwise it's not a competition . The irritation is, as always, non-games in competitions, whether table sitting, corner sitting, or chasing LH like Benny Hill chased without success.

Club games are very different.

Three wrote:Gents,

I haven't played in a competition for 25 years, so I have no knowledge or experience concerning trends or phases with dominant army types. I would like someone with more relevant experience to possibly answer this one - is the perceived problem with LH/skirmisher type armies one that is confined to open competitions only, or do themed ones also "suffer" from the same problem?

TIA

I think it is far more of a 'problem' in open comps. Yes you can have Romans and Parthians or Macedonians and Skythians but in general themed events tend to have more ballanced army pools. It may be that I have not seen the problem much because I mainly play themed comps and at 900 points to boot.

hammy wrote:

Three wrote:Gents,
I haven't played in a competition for 25 years, so I have no knowledge or experience concerning trends or phases with dominant army types. I would like someone with more relevant experience to possibly answer this one - is the perceived problem with LH/skirmisher type armies one that is confined to open competitions only, or do themed ones also "suffer" from the same problem?
TIA

I think it is far more of a 'problem' in open comps. Yes you can have Romans and Parthians or Macedonians and Skythians but in general themed events tend to have more ballanced army pools. It may be that I have not seen the problem much because I mainly play themed comps and at 900 points to boot.

I'd go further to say that for most tourney players it's not a "problem" at all. You turn up, move painted toys around, roll dice, meet some new folks and life's a beach

But for a few of us battle-hardened cynical old hacks, the prospect of travelling maybe hundreds of miles, and then facing 1 or 2 "unwinnable from the start" games (out of 4) is enough of a downer that it's making some of us rethink the whole concept of doing as many FoG comps in future.

The other concern/question is whether what's perhaps happening at the "cynical old hack" edge of the tourney world may eventually filter down to the mainstream - and the end result is to move the debate on to whether this is just a hard-core tourney hack issue or an early symptom of an awareness of a wider systemic shortcoming in the rules.

FWIW I personally think that if you look at comments on other forums (such as TMP) they also lend some credence to the "systemic" position, as many of the same "objections"/"criticisms" seem to recur time and time again - from "casual", "historical-refight" and "competition" players/

madaxeman wrote:I'd go further to say that for most tourney players it's not a "problem" at all. You turn up, move painted toys around, roll dice, meet some new folks and life's a beach

But for a few of us battle-hardened cynical old hacks, the prospect of travelling maybe hundreds of miles, and then facing 1 or 2 "unwinnable from the start" games (out of 4) is enough of a downer that it's making some of us rethink the whole concept of doing as many FoG comps in future.

A very valid point Tim. This is pretty much entirely why I had such a downer on team comps in the later days of DBM.

The other concern/question is whether what's perhaps happening at the "cynical old hack" edge of the tourney world may eventually filter down to the mainstream - and the end result is to move the debate on to whether this is just a hard-core tourney hack issue or an early symptom of an awareness of a wider systemic shortcoming in the rules.

FWIW I personally think that if you look at comments on other forums (such as TMP) they also lend some credence to the "systemic" position, as many of the same "objections"/"criticisms" seem to recur time and time again - from "casual", "historical-refight" and "competition" players/

I don't see this as a FoG specific issue, more of a tournament issue.

peterrjohnston wrote: It's not a end of the world as we know it problem, mainly an irritation in competitions, were one prefers, at least I do, wins, losses or hard fought draws. Otherwise it's not a competition . The irritation is, as always, non-games in competitions, whether table sitting, corner sitting, or chasing LH like Benny Hill chased without success.

Not sure that can be solved by changing the scoring system or the rules, people who prefer to take an 'I won't win, but I will not lose either' approach to tournament gaming will always find ways to make it happen (aside from uncatchable armies hunkering down in or behind Terrain and simply playing very slowly are other common ways to make this happen). You can make it more difficult by changing the rules or less appealing by changing the scoring system (and to be honest I would like to try that path first, if for no other reason as that it can be instituted far easier and quicker), but in the end I doubt you can remove that kind of behaviour.