Slitherine

All this talk of chasing LH and skirmishers off the table. Another thing that makes it more dificult.

When your troops reach the enemy base edge, having chased maybe 1 or 2 BG off, the remaining skirmishers that you missed then manouver a lot faster than you and get an extra minus one for the CT against you when shooting because your troops are within 6MU of a table edge, and battle troops find it a lot more difficult to get away from the edge.

I thought this rule was to stop people corner sitting, not stop them from chasing the enemy from the table.

Perhaps -1 to CT if within 6MU of any side edge except the enemy base edge for battle troops.
Just to add a bit more:-1 for skirmish troops if within 6MU of their own base edge. This would make them easier to break if on their back foot as before leaving the table as well.
For battletroops you could also say there morale would be high because they had gained the field. For skirmishers they have been left alone facing battle troops close to their route home, so are likely to take it. But its only a rule mechanism.

Phil

My initial reaction was URGH! but the more I read and thought the more I like it. I think your full proposal should be trialled and (assumping no unintended consequence) become an officail errata.

How about making this a rule for Brutcon in August? Gives people time to think about it and modify army choice.

youve got my vote


where do the main parties stand on this issue

I think that given that there is already a package of measures to limit these troops at a more advanced stage of consideration it is unlikely to be adopted any time soon. I also worry that starting down the road of "-1 if you're x, unless you're here in which case -1 if you're y" is starting to overcomplicate things.

The rule is
-1 if within 6MU of a table edge unelss skirmishers

I propose

-1 if battle troops within 6MU of a table edge, unless enemy base edge

The addition to make skirmishers vulnerable to table edges

-1 if skirmishers within 6 MU of own base ege.

This is only bad for them if they have reason to test. i.e. they do not have battle troops protecting them from the enemy.

Great proposal Phil - works for me.

This was something I suggested after our game on Monday.

Phil's troops chased some Light Horse all over the table, not really giving a hoot, but they got right close to my base edge and then they broke after three shooting rounds. Two of the failures were caused by the -1 for being close to the table edge. Which was a bit harsh.

One for v2.0 I think.

dave_r wrote:This was something I suggested after our game on Monday.

Phil's troops chased some Light Horse all over the table, not really giving a hoot, but they got right close to my base edge and then they broke after three shooting rounds. Two of the failures were caused by the -1 for being close to the table edge. Which was a bit harsh.

One for v2.0 I think.

Take the glory for the idea and for breaking a BG of Superior armoured foot with LF slingers as well why don't you! Even worse the slingers were disrupted. And worse than that I tested to expand them and failed, forgetting that they did not need to CMT to expand as they were drilled, which may also have saved them.

The addition to make skirmishers vulnerable to table edges

-1 if skirmishers within 6 MU of own base edge.

I'm OK with this one

-1 if battle troops within 6MU of a table edge, unless enemy base edge

Not with this one, unless you change it to :

-1 if battle troops within 6MU of a table edge, unless shot at near enemy base edge

Shot at and broke by skirmisher is a bit harsh, I agree but close combat against heavy are no less frightening for the defender than attacker

olivier wrote:-1 if battle troops within 6MU of a table edge, unless shot at near enemy base edge

Shot at and broke by skirmisher is a bit harsh, I agree but close combat against heavy are no less frightening for the defender than attacker

But the defender already has his back to the wall and will therefore, being closer to his exit route, be more willing to run. The attacker will have gained more of the battle field, be close to the enemy camp, and seem in his BG area to be on the currently winning side. Attacking the enemy near his base edge will be a good thing and encourage attacking play. Which is what people want. Corner sitters will be scared to do so because of the massive difference in CMT result compared to going forwards. The -1 in the current rule is to keep things in the main area of play and discourage corner sitting. This will work even better.

Against mounted armies with a foot armies, you need to turn the table and your solution , help more a mounted who are the first to touch the opposite edge than a foot army as your refusing flank collapse first. Any time troops fight more desperately to protect their communication line than to cut the enemy one.

The rule are good enough to stop the corner sitter, don't help fast armies to take the camp... and 2 AP easier than before.

philqw78 wrote:The rule is
-1 if within 6MU of a table edge unelss skirmishers

I propose

-1 if battle troops within 6MU of a table edge, unless enemy base edge

The addition to make skirmishers vulnerable to table edges

-1 if skirmishers within 6 MU of own base ege.

This is only bad for them if they have reason to test. i.e. they do not have battle troops protecting them from the enemy.

Even simpler:

-1 if battle troops within 6 MU of a SIDE edge. (Unknown is left or right, not back and forward what matters: if we are going forward we are pursuing!)

-1 if skirmishers isolated (not friendly battle troops within 6 MU and opponent battle troops within 6 MU)

The last could seem too penalizing because you can say: skirmishers' job is to stay isolated against battle troops. This is true indeed, but skirmishers don't need to test to make their job, because they evade without take any test. They test only in stress condition (under missile fire, in melee, because they see friends break, etc). So I think a such modifier could be justified.

IMHO this cannot resolve all the problems about LH and LF.

marioslaz wrote: IMHO this cannot resolve all the problems about LH and LF.

Can we also sort out the problums with the medium foot and Cavalry as well?

david53 wrote: Can we also sort out the problums with the medium foot and Cavalry as well?

No

philqw78 wrote:

david53 wrote: Can we also sort out the problums with the medium foot and Cavalry as well?

No

Think so

david53 wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

david53 wrote: Can we also sort out the problums with the medium foot and Cavalry as well?

No

Think so

david53 wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

david53 wrote: Can we also sort out the problums with the medium foot and Cavalry as well?

No

Think so

david53 wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

david53 wrote: Can we also sort out the problums with the medium foot and Cavalry as well?

No

Well maybe, but I wasn't thinking about that

philqw78 wrote:

david53 wrote:

philqw78 wrote: No

Think so

david53 wrote:

philqw78 wrote: No

Think so

david53 wrote:

philqw78 wrote: No

Well maybe, but I wasn't thinking about that

I know BTW I agree with you