Slitherine

Jhykronos wrote:I'd say the biggest problem with the bowmen is that there is no "winning tactic" for the Pike and Shot in this matchup. In a shootout the latter get outshot, and their advantage in impact/melee is pretty miniscule; I would expect a formation including a body of decent quality pikemen to cut through "light infantry" (in the colloquial sense, not the FOG-R troop type) archers like a chainsaw through butter, but there are no POAs to be seen.

It gets worse: make the bowmen warriors with sword, and they are up ++ on any overlap; and when they come in blocks of 8 there is always an overlap with a P&S.....

Even without the sword ++ on overlap!

Thanks. I was actually trying to forget that experience.

(Was it you and Ray that beat Bruce 24-1, or was it Simon and Kevin?)

Currently Determined foot are an extra point, why aren't warriors also a point more they move the same speed, are not disordered in terrain like Determined foot, and get ++ on overlap. The negatives are 2 hits by artillery is always a test, -1 CMT if lost to mtd/heavier troops in the open amd a + when impacted by mtd in the open, also no division moves. Personally I thought the Warrior ability of ++ on overlap itself is worth 1 pt.

I've always found the 8 base warrior bow units a bit problematic against pike/shot. They can get all 8 shooting at short range against 2 or 3 of the pike/shot shooting at long range, need 3 hits for a cohesion test and when they finally get into combat get a ++ on overlap even if they have no weapon. Seems a good deal for the points.

nikgaukroger wrote:Suggestions?

New POA - steady non-camel horse or cavalry in front edge combat against camels, -1.

Doesn't stack with DIsrupted or Disordered so Pi Horse are a bit better than currently, also doesn't apply to overlaps or corner contact only.

madaxeman wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Suggestions?

New POA - steady non-camel horse or cavalry in front edge combat against camels, -1.

Doesn't stack with DIsrupted or Disordered so Pi Horse are a bit better than currently, also doesn't apply to overlaps or corner contact only.

This just appears to be adding complexity.
I don't know if there is much historical evidence for camels fighting European style horse in any numbers. However, it is historical that horses don't like fighting camels, so the rules may be OK.
We just need to sort the points out to reflect the fact than camels with light lance and sword are much better than pistol pistol horse/determined horse.

DavidT wrote:

madaxeman wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Suggestions?

New POA - steady non-camel horse or cavalry in front edge combat against camels, -1.

Doesn't stack with DIsrupted or Disordered so Pi Horse are a bit better than currently, also doesn't apply to overlaps or corner contact only.

This just appears to be adding complexity.
I don't know if there is much historical evidence for camels fighting European style horse in any numbers. However, it is historical that horses don't like fighting camels, so the rules may be OK.
We just need to sort the points out to reflect the fact than camels with light lance and sword are much better than pistol pistol horse/determined horse.

In respect of the Tuareg Camels I don't recall many complaints about them previously, it seems to be the points changes (as currently proposed) maybe just tipping them into being an issue. In which case adjust through the "camel surcharge" would be an easy solution. Additionally, instead of reclassifying the Tuaregs as Horse they could easily be left as Camelry and, thus, retain the -1CT to firearms (and not be Shock). I have no strong feelings on the latter.

In respect of the Tuareg Camels I don't recall many complaints about them previously

And is all this because of the result from one competition where some of the match ups were possibly pure fantasy? Please correct me otherwise as my grasp of North African history is not particularly robust( I don't have the relevant army companions either) so I may be missing something.

nikgaukroger wrote:In respect of the Tuareg Camels I don't recall many complaints about them previously, it seems to be the points changes (as currently proposed) maybe just tipping them into being an issue. In which case adjust through the "camel surcharge" would be an easy solution. Additionally, instead of reclassifying the Tuaregs as Horse they could easily be left as Camelry and, thus, retain the -1CT to firearms (and not be Shock). I have no strong feelings on the latter.

As I mentioned in the "Bow" thread, Alasdair Harley has been thrashing all-comers with West Sudanese for the last two years, or thereabouts, and - as you say - nobody has complained. It just so happens that, with Alasdair not playing so much FoGR nowadays, there is a little more competition at the top; and that there were two West Sudanese and one Tuareg armies at BadCon and they finished in the top three. I think it should be up to tournament organisers to "theme" competitions more strictly, and/or introduce "local" rules to avoid such anomalies (assuming people wish to - I doubt I would have managed a top three finish with either army), rather than drastically altering the rules to allow such ahistorical match-ups, but stop the "primitive" army achieving what might - had there been such a match-up in real life - have happened anyway.

Themeing for competitions is great, and I like it most of the time but unfortunately the top competition in the Uk (Britcon) and the Worlds have always been open, and I don't want to turn them into Camel; fests.

Lets get it right about Alasdair. If he turned up with the worst army possible he would still win. He was the master of any mounted based army but he also won competitions with foot in his army.

Absolutely, Bob. It wasn't a dig at him, simply making the point that nobody had a problem with West Sudanese when he used them (I gather he didn't do so well with large armies of Scots Covenanters - but then nobody ever has, including the Scots!).

While we can all say that historical match ups are the preference and many prefer playing them, that is fine but the fact is FOGR (as many ancient and medieval sets do) covers a large period of time and allow you to play between non historical opponents. The rule changes have to cater for this. Also as Ben says we have always had some open competitions and I think that should continue, but with the majority remaining themed. Open competitions provide different challenges.

I think the issue is the points changes and amendments have potentially tipped camels into overly strong troop types.

benjones1211 wrote:Themeing for competitions is great, and I like it most of the time but unfortunately the top competition in the Uk (Britcon) and the Worlds have always been open, and I don't want to turn them into Camel; fests.

Was the previous points cost for the Tuareg camels OK in your opinion?

nikgaukroger wrote:

benjones1211 wrote:Themeing for competitions is great, and I like it most of the time but unfortunately the top competition in the Uk (Britcon) and the Worlds have always been open, and I don't want to turn them into Camel; fests.

Was the previous points cost for the Tuareg camels OK in your opinion?

I have only ever played against Tuareg (not the West Sudanese with Tuareg allies) and the camels seemed good value but it was the other troops which let the army down. My opponent didn't appear to have any issues with the cost at the time.

I was fine with the original cost

DavidT wrote:What is the consensus on Light Lance/Heavy Lance or Impact Pistol/Impact Mtd? I know that I prefer 1/2 /3 points.

I'd like to update the draft points ASAP and further feedback on this would be rather useful.

And, of course, any other points issues, but this one particularly

Doesn't this mean that pistol/pistol Horse will be 1 point more overall

2 for Melee
2 for Impact

as opposed
1 for Impact
2 for Melee

It would - one reason I'm wanting feedback sooner rather than later

Ultimately the question is probably is it worth trying to have different points cost for Light and Heavy Lancers? If so options are probably 0 and 1 or 1 and 2 and this can knock on to other Impact capability costs.

Related is whether Impact Mounted is 1 or 2 points more than Impact pistol.