cheesy rule

[marioslaz]

5. Since there are inherent problems with deploying in column, it is nearly self administered to an extent

Only to column? Think to a LF BG in line perpendicular to the front of an other BG. In this way the BG can interpenetrate LF widthways with even more gain in move speed. 8 LF in line = 32cm = 12 MU!!! You can make to fly a BG of elephants across a brush or other such terrain, but also you can use this bridge to fast move troops in a critical point of battlefield.

You can use this system also to defend skirmishers who risk to be caught by enemy: put one BG of LF in a 2 file and 3 rows behind another BG of LF in 2 rows and 3 file. If the LF BG in line is charged by LH, you can easily bring your LF BGs out LH range with evasion: first BG of LF evade and interpenetrate the LF behind gaining extra movement. Then, if second LF BG is reached by LH, it can evades and interpenetrate the first. This could be not so bad, since something similar seems Greece made with their peltasts against Artaserse at Cunassa.

[hazelbark]

Joking apart I do this pretty much every game - single line of LF deploys at 15", Cav deploy at 10". First turn the Cav move approximately 7" and then get their second move usually. I rarely do the column thing.

Then I would consider it appropriate that your opponent decides to vist the toilet for 90 minutes and your game ends with a time out. Nothing in the rules say a player must move at anything above a glacial speed.

Seriously, neither your army nor your skill level require this. You are a better person and player than needing to do this in every game especially to deploy to do this.

[hazelbark]

In an ideal world.... Here are the problems:

1. Not everybody subscribes to this list

All the gamey Bas****d do.

2. What happens when this situation "just happens" and was not done intentionally?

Acceptable.

3. Self enforcement tends to only work when the result doesn't matter. It tends not to work when it is bloody important that you gain that extra distance

Gentlemen do not open other gentlemen's mail.

4. This was raised prior to publication and the Authors are aware of the issue

One author has stated the punch in the nose rule.

5. Since there are inherent problems with deploying in column, it is nearly self administered to an extent
6. If it was that important it would have been grumped about earlier than 18 months after publication

People have been more polite than to feel the need to engineer this.

[ravenflight]

This is the point. If you play historical wargame you should like history

I do like history, and I'd only ever use this tactic against the Romans... but they deserve it. What have the Romans ever given us?

Oh, no - I've done it again haven't I

[ravenflight]

Could we, as a FoG community, come to an understanding that "warp speed" movement is outside the pale? That it is something that we will all agree not to deliberately employ, at least in its abusive forms? Obviously this will be difficult to recognize and enforce, as there will always be non-abusive instances of warp speed, and a gray area as a result.

Comments?

Marc

I'm not sure if it's 'doable' but as I said in an earlier post, causing one (or BOTH) BG who interpenetrate and increase their distance to drop a cohesion level. When you consider the effect of being broken up, some of the guys one one side of the formation, others on the other etc etc, it could take quite some time to reform.

This in itself would cause problems as then you would end up with a fragmented BG who breaks because they accidentally interpenetrate a BG of LF.

[david53]

To be honest this is going round in circles.

The rule is in the book, no point in people quoting an author about punching. Why was it left in then, they could have stopped cavalry moving through LF like Knights can't if they wanted to.

You can all say we should ban it as a community.

Its just not going to happen.

Had a game tonight were light horse Lancers passed through a LF BG and popped out the other side onto the flank of an enemy BG. What was I supposed to do not do it, sorry its in rules told the player it was coming and did it.

No matter how guilty people try and make this if it happens again I will do the same. If someone does it to me well its in the rules so you can do it.

[david53]

Could we, as a FoG community, come to an understanding that "warp speed" movement is outside the pale? That it is something that we will all agree not to deliberately employ, at least in its abusive forms? Obviously this will be difficult to recognize and enforce, as there will always be non-abusive instances of warp speed, and a gray area as a result.

Comments?

Marc

I'm not sure if it's 'doable' but as I said in an earlier post, causing one (or BOTH) BG who interpenetrate and increase their distance to drop a cohesion level. When you consider the effect of being broken up, some of the guys one one side of the formation, others on the other etc etc, it could take quite some time to reform.

This in itself would cause problems as then you would end up with a fragmented BG who breaks because they accidentally interpenetrate a BG of LF.

As Dave R's stated they arn't going to do a FOG 1.1 for a long time, the best way to deal with it is to look out for it and plan against it.

[kal5056]

The Punch in the nose still seems like a better solution and the rules do not prohibit this either.
Gino
SMAC

[babyshark]

Had a game tonight were light horse Lancers passed through a LF BG and popped out the other side onto the flank of an enemy BG. What was I supposed to do not do it, sorry its in rules told the player it was coming and did it.

No matter how guilty people try and make this if it happens again I will do the same. If someone does it to me well its in the rules so you can do it.

This is a valid point, and--as a dedicated tournament gamer--I cannot complain too much. The rules are there for everyone, and fair enough. Worse than that, I am a lawyer. I really can't complain about something that is in the rules.

And yet, and yet. These exploits do tend to turn off new players, something that we cannot be blase about as a hobby. And they simply do not look historical or feel right. It is the pity of the world.

Marc

[Blathergut]

Have there been no author comments on this here or in other threads/places?

It truly does not seem to fit the spirit of the game. This is the first thing that's come up that's brought back similar manouevers in another game system that made me leave the hoccy for many years. FoG has been very refreshing in it's feel and the way it plays out. This does not fit with that sense at all.

[jlopez]

To be honest this is going round in circles.

The rule is in the book, no point in people quoting an author about punching. Why was it left in then, they could have stopped cavalry moving through LF like Knights can't if they wanted to.

You can all say we should ban it as a community.

Its just not going to happen.

Had a game tonight were light horse Lancers passed through a LF BG and popped out the other side onto the flank of an enemy BG. What was I supposed to do not do it, sorry its in rules told the player it was coming and did it.

No matter how guilty people try and make this if it happens again I will do the same. If someone does it to me well its in the rules so you can do it.

I agree that it is utopic to think we can ban this as a community or expect the authors to do something about it in the short term. However, it is perfectly feasible to deal with it by including a solution in the competition rules and this is what will be done in Spain. I encourage competition umpires/organisers elsewhere to follow suit.


Julian

[madaxeman]

"Partial interpenetrators move entirely through" is in the rules because the authors found this to the be the "least-worst" game mechanic to deal with this situation - and given the robustness of the rest of the rules, I for one am happy to accept their judgement on this, and also suspect its unlikely that we will come up with a better alternative.

However it is open to abuse, and a forum like this is the ideal place to debate what constitutes "abuse", "being unsporting" etc etc .

Reading the posts so far, my take is that deliberately engineering a situation where advantage can be gained by "move entirely through" interpenetration is "abuse", but gaining advantage accidentally by dint of this happening during normal game play is "just one of those things" that needs to be accepted as the downside of a "least-worst" game mechanic.

There will of course be some grey areas where the deliberate/accidental boundary is, but most "deliberately engineered" will be very deliberately engineered. And even if there's nothing in the rules to stop them, there's nothing to stop me heaping public scorn and abuse on anyone who does this either

[philqw78]

I agree. It should be amended. But any such amendment would have to be thoroughly play tested to prevent even worse cheese. And would have to be well publicised before hand. Otherwise you will end up going down a very slippery road of amendments for amendments with clarifications of the clarifications and exceptions for the amendments for certain troop types on days beginning with a T or containing an R.
Up until then anyone who wishes to punch me on the nose fill your boots. RBS is a doctor and its his fault so he can look after me.

[dave_r]

Joking apart I do this pretty much every game - single line of LF deploys at 15", Cav deploy at 10". First turn the Cav move approximately 7" and then get their second move usually. I rarely do the column thing.

Then I would consider it appropriate that your opponent decides to vist the toilet for 90 minutes and your game ends with a time out. Nothing in the rules say a player must move at anything above a glacial speed.

Seriously, neither your army nor your skill level require this. You are a better person and player than needing to do this in every game especially to deploy to do this.

If I deploy my lancers at their maximum distance in and the LF at their maximum distance in, with the LF in front of the Cav (which I pretty much always do), then normally the Cav want to advance and the LF want to run away. Whatever move I do then somebody is going to be moving extra distance?

There was much discussion at the club last night, there are clearly huge abuses, which I haven't seen - ambushes in woods, which allow Cataphracts or Elephants to teleport through difficult going for example. I think the best solution is to state that If any BG is interpenetrated then it must remain stationery for the entire turn.

Incidentally, the incident that first brought this to light was when a BG of Cavalry EVADED, through a huge block of LF in a Forest, which meant they popped out about 15" away on the other side in a very favourable position. It was when we checked the rules that we realised that this could have been done as a move as well as an evade. I raised it immediately on the forum, as to me it was horrific, but there was never a viable solution found.

Incidentally, I can't be that good cos I got beaten by an American

[david53]

.

Reading the posts so far, my take is that deliberately engineering a situation where advantage can be gained by "move entirely through" interpenetration is "abuse", but gaining advantage accidentally by dint of this happening during normal game play is "just one of those things" that needs to be accepted as the downside of a "least-worst" game mechanic.

I'm all for this name and shame but the ability to deliberately engineer this takes a bit of ability and understanding of the rules which would mean the top players could do this.

Therefore would you name and shame them or would it be seen as okey by top players just something they do while being real real bad for not so top players.

Using last night as an experience I did'nt plan for my LH Lancers to pop out through my LF BG on to a BG of my opponents flank, it just happened. Who could tell if it was deliberate or not, and not being a top player was it chessy.

I just think we have to be very careful about calling people over this problum.

[philqw78]

And even if there's nothing in the rules to stop them, there's nothing to stop me heaping public scorn and abuse on anyone who does this either

Yes, they're much like the scum who use Dominate Romans.

[Esbenmf]

What would the problems of implementing a rule: "no more than one additional MU can be gained in this way" be ? I mean, if you couldn't move that far without a BG obstructing your way, why should you be able to just because a BG IS obstructing your passage.

Esben

[dave_r]

What about Evade moves?

[david53]

And even if there's nothing in the rules to stop them, there's nothing to stop me heaping public scorn and abuse on anyone who does this either

Yes, they're much like the scum who use Dominate Romans.

Seems a tad strong I'm sure they are real nice people deep down under all that roman armour.

[madcam2us]

Unless in an evade/rout move, an interpenetration can only pass through a BG in two ranks....

Columns are the issue as they provide the smell in the cheese....

Eliminate their ability to time warp and viola!

Keep as normal in the evade/rout function...

Simple...

Madcam.