Broken Rules

[madaxeman]

... like your nemasis Dave R.

How many posts do you have to have the status of Tim Porter's Nemesis" on this forum?

And what's the graphic look like ?

Dave Ruddock riding a light horse wearing a deerstalker hat whilst twiddling his moustache cunningly and cackling like a madman..?

[petedalby]

For me interpenetration is the main issue. And I'm reassured that the authors are on with it.

I'd like to see Roads placed last - but allow them to be superimposed on anything other than impassable. But it's not the end of the world as it is.

I can see the pro's and con's of LH evading off table for 1AP or 2AP. I thought Sagji's suggestion of a pursuing BG going off was quite good. The loss of Camp turning 1AP to 2AP is also pretty good - and would probably see more fortified camps as a result?

If people are unhappy with terrain selection you could mix it up a bit? Player with initiative chooses the terrain type and the compulsory. The other player now chooses 2 bits, followed by the player with initiative. And then they each choose up to 2 more each in the same order. Dice and placement follow in the same order. So more variety and we lose the steppe stitch up.

I like the idea of some of Nik's suggestions but they are pretty fundamental to the game so probably a step too far at this stage.

[paulcummins]

I am pretty happy with the rules as they stand

Ive never seen the interpenetration abuse happen, so can really comment on that, but it sounds a bit of a bummer. Niks FOGR solution does (I think) prevent HYW billmen passing through the LB. not that I have ever done that on purpose, so no big loss.

the turn 90 / move thing is probably the nastiest thing that drilled armies can do, so I can see the argument for getting shot of it, or reducing it effect. Half move sounds sensible, though I fear it would half my fun

1 AP for fleeing off table is a pain in the fundament, so just make it 2. the 'steppe nomads win that way' argument if great for scenarios/campaigns, but silly in a one off battle.

Maybe adjustments should be in a forth coming tournaments supplement (to go alongside the the campaign supplement)

[hoodlum]

Hi All

My biggest issue at the moment is the ability of troops to turn 180 degrees for no penalty or cost. In the last few games i have played - the opponents admittedly quite good players saw the main thrust of my attack and decided to turn all the troops around in that area and move away. this had the effect of delaying contact for at least three turns as I tried to catch them. In the meantime the rest o my army collapsed. Smart play on their part.

I guess the counter is for me to turn my troops around and to start moving away from their attack.

Cue Benny Hill music.

Other rule sets I have played discourage this by requiring extra points or placing limitations as such. THere are no limitations. no cohesion test no complex move test. It enables the player to delay contact and this then has the effect of enabling them to time out the game and/or drag your forces out of hte way for the rest of the game.

Hell I have even seen superior heavily armoured knights turn 180 and move away -- There should at least be a court martial

[hoodlum]

Another issue arising in the last few games again within the rules and exploited by good tricksy players is the micro measure for the buttocks of death.

1 unit zocs a cav unit to get as close as possible and then a light foot unit managers to get a tadger's todger of a corner of a base behind the cav unit. thereon the cav unit if charges is in greta trouble as it will not be able to break off.

All legit and within the rules it just seems odd that a micro part of an enemy element can prevent an entire unit from retiring and light foot at that. Surely the cav armoured at that would jsut dig the spurs in and ride on. Or at worst you would be disrupted bu t not prevented from retiring.

my thoughts are that may be you should be able to move half a base width to avoid the enemy to ensure a more substantial contact.

It did happen not just once, or twice but three times in the game. rest assured even if the rules do not change I will not be caught like that again....

[jlopez]

2. Once Blitz has started, the active player has 2 minutes to declare charges and move them, his opponent has 1 minute to move his evades. During the movement phase the active player has 5 minutes to move his entire army. Once a player's time limit is up, no more units can be moved and any units declared as evading instead stand to receive the charge. Time to be checked by non-active player.

This won't work - 1 minute is nowhere near enough to move multiple evades. Especially if they are complicated. If you have 10 evades then are you expected to complete each one in six second? If they are complicated you simply call the umpire and the time must be stopped anyway?

I suggest you have a minute to declare charges and a minute to respond, but then have as much time as needed to actually move the toys. This could also be abused by allowing units to stand that normally under the rules would be forced to evade.

I would suggest if you are trying this then you also limit the JAP phase to 1 minute as well.

Yes it's a bit tough. Make it 15 seconds per evade and per charge. Basically, by the time Blitz starts you should start thinking very carefully about where you place BGs that could evade into complicated situations. Keeping it simple becomes imperative. Having fewer evaders in the army is also an option, or simply playing quickly enough to avoid Blitz being imposed on you.

If there are any disagreements I'm considering having the umpire move all remaining charges and evades in summary fashion to discourage future disagreements and keep the momentum going as the umpire could become very busy in the third hour...

The JAP is less of an issue as few people take the piss with that phase and those who do will have red cards waved under their noses.

Thanks for the comments.

Julian

[timmy1]

'The solution favoured, as we know, by the discerning'. Nik also favours this.

[timmy1]

Nik wrote 'OK, FWIW here are the things I think could usefully be tackled - ...

1. Interpenetration. Open to masssive abuse as has been stated. My favoured solution is to simply not allow it unless the whole BG can move beyond the BG it is passing through - dead simples. IIRC it is what we've put in FoG:R FWIW.'

Hurrah !

[DavidT]

Hi All

My biggest issue at the moment is the ability of troops to turn 180 degrees for no penalty or cost. In the last few games i have played - the opponents admittedly quite good players saw the main thrust of my attack and decided to turn all the troops around in that area and move away. this had the effect of delaying contact for at least three turns as I tried to catch them. In the meantime the rest o my army collapsed. Smart play on their part.

I agree that this is a problem. I brought it up in a post before, but the authors were of the opinion that it wasn't an issue. For a battleline of non-skirmishers to turn around and march away from the enemy is inviting disaster in reality (which is why you don't read of it in any historical battles). Unfortunately it is a viable tactic in FoG. A simple CMT to do it (even at a + for drilled troops) would be a big improvement.

[richnz]

I agree with hoodlum that it doesnt quite seem right for an entire wing of troops to be able to turn around and move away to defer combat. In DBM this would be almost impossible as you would never get enough pips to turn a whole command round.

Also support Hoodlum's comment on Bgs preventing breakoffs. Perhaps this should be restricted to non-skirmishers only? Skirmishers can't exert a zone of influence on non-lights, so why would a corner of a unit of slingers stop some knights from breaking off. Or least make them get a whole base in behind and substantially block it.

I'd also like to see the value of losing the camp change. It doesnt seem right that a small, high quality army e.g. spartans, would be disproportionately hurt by losing the camp as compared to an army composed of large numbers of smaller units. A player with lots of BGs can afford to give up the camp when playing a smaller opponent.

Evading off table has to be a 2 AP loss.

[DavidT]

Evading off table has to be a 2 AP loss.

I don't believe that this is the way to go. As has been mentioned previously, this would only encourage players to unrealistically stand and fight at the edge of the table with their skirmishers. A better solution is to introduce an upper limit at which any army will break (unless it has fewer BGs), irrespective of the number of BGs in it (e.g 12). This doesn't restrict LH armies from being able to play as they want.

[richnz]

A better solution is to introduce an upper limit at which any army will break (unless it has fewer BGs), irrespective of the number of BGs in it (e.g 12). This doesn't restrict LH armies from being able to play as they want.

That'd work quite nicely too.

[OldenTired]

I agree with hoodlum that it doesnt quite seem right for an entire wing of troops to be able to turn around and move away to defer combat. In DBM this would be almost impossible as you would never get enough pips to turn a whole command round.

Also support Hoodlum's comment on Bgs preventing breakoffs. Perhaps this should be restricted to non-skirmishers only? Skirmishers can't exert a zone of influence on non-lights, so why would a corner of a unit of slingers stop some knights from breaking off. Or least make them get a whole base in behind and substantially block it.

I'd also like to see the value of losing the camp change. It doesnt seem right that a small, high quality army e.g. spartans, would be disproportionately hurt by losing the camp as compared to an army composed of large numbers of smaller units. A player with lots of BGs can afford to give up the camp when playing a smaller opponent.

Evading off table has to be a 2 AP loss.

re entire battlelines retreating, it's farcical and deserves the same treatment charles "the bold" got... a rogering.

and make the value of the camp something like a fifth of the army rounded down. so a 12-14 BG army, the size the authors intended is worth 2 break points. but on a 20BG swarm, 4 points.

[sadista]

Could also increase the cost of losing the camp based on the number of casulties the army has already taken.
Not such a worry if the camp gets taken early but can make a big difference if the army is shaken by casulties.

[Lycanthropic]

LH evading off the table should be 1AP if the opponent stops at the table edge, 2AP if they chase off the table after the LH.........conceding 1AP for committing to the chase.
Baggage should be worth a quarter of your total AP rounded up. Baggage is beer and women, and money and food. Wars are won and lost over these things.
Terrain bowling alleys should be nerfed like Scots Continental 4s.....terrain should be allowed to be placed under roads and alongside a "table-edge OR coast OR river".
Initiative is fine, you can have terrain, I'll move first.

Of all these things, would any of us refrain from going to a tournament that stated any of these rules??

[OldenTired]

LH evading off the table should be 1AP if the opponent stops at the table edge, 2AP if they chase off the table after the LH.........conceding 1AP for committing to the chase.
Baggage should be worth a quarter of your total AP rounded up. Baggage is beer and women, and money and food. Wars are won and lost over these things.
Terrain bowling alleys should be nerfed like Scots Continental 4s.....terrain should be allowed to be placed under roads and alongside a "table-edge OR coast OR river".
Initiative is fine, you can have terrain, I'll move first.

Of all these things, would any of us refrain from going to a tournament that stated any of these rules??

i sure wouldn't.

in fact, it would be good to trial some of them. especially the baggage one. didn't the argyraspids once hand over an unpopular general to get theirs back?

[sadista]

Should be a compulsary shout if your baggage is taken too. Beer good, baggage lost bad.

[philqw78]

Terrain bowling alleys should be nerfed like Scots Continental 4s.....terrain should be allowed to be placed under roads and alongside a "table-edge OR coast OR river".
Initiative is fine, you can have terrain, I'll move first.

So if I pay an extra 45pts for my general I get to choose the terrain type, then you get to put down most terrain and move first. Brilliant.

[richnz]

I think the werewolf was saying that he likes the initiative system- not proposing to change it.

[philqw78]

I think the werewolf was saying that he likes the initiative system- not proposing to change it.

Exactly, change the terrain system but keep the initiative the same. I suppose he would also want an end game mechanic where the players did not play even numbers of turns, but game just stopped. These are all interlinked.