Slitherine

We are deciding at present whether to go to a counter system for cohesion states or not. In essence you can show the states with bases but it is perhaps fiddly and it can't cover all situations (e.g. the few 2E bodyguard BGs). On the other hand some people feel counters look messy.

A little experiment.....here's a poll to respond to so that we can consolidate views from testers. We will leave it here and gather up the results when we get to a suitable decision point. Its a method I want to try for other topics later as well if we can make it work (points system/VCs etc.).

Do you prefer:

1. Using figures to repesent cohesion states (and rely on memory for a few cases where it doesn't work)
2. Using counters to record cohesion states (so there is 100% accuracy but counters across to the table)
3. No preference

And part 2, having given a preference:

A. I prefer rules to clearly state
B. I prefer to have the rules allow either option by mutual agreement

So just hit reply and type

1 A or 3 B or whatever....just 2 movement of the digit required (ok 4 if you count reply and submit)

Cheers

Si

PS if you change your mind just come in an edit it.

Just to be difficult:

1 B but the alternative should be custom bases similar to the pin bases some FoW players use.

Other than that I have no real problem with 1.

I think 1 B also...

It seems to be an no brainer to go down the token rout. Adjusting the elements within the BG just doesn't work all the time.

Games like fire 'n fury etc etc all have appropriate figures counters (ammunition waggon for low ammo etc)

I'm sure there are enough wounded / running figures out there (or if not, an opportunity for manufacturers out there) to add an visual element to the game

Cheers

Simon

list_lurker wrote:I think 1 B also...

It seems to be an no brainer to go down the token rout. Adjusting the elements within the BG just doesn't work all the time.

Games like fire 'n fury etc etc all have appropriate figures counters (ammunition waggon for low ammo etc)

I'm sure there are enough wounded / running figures out there (or if not, an opportunity for manufacturers out there) to add an visual element to the game

Cheers

Simon

This appears to be a new option? Using a different base of figures to denote cohesion rather than counters?

I like it but it might be a problem for players without these figures. My personal preference is 1B but my concern is that it will be too easy to unconsciously 'tidy' Disrupted bases and make them appear Steady.

Pete

1B

But unless we find a better way to represent states for units, I suspect counters are going to be used regardless of what the rules say. Maybe we are in the situation where bases can be used for firendly games and counters are going to be used in competitions.

2 b

I have played two games now and in both, I, either lost track of the state of a unit (after a long melee and several cohesion tests and attempted rallies for several "battlegroups" fighting next to each other) or in a melee with multiple opponents could not distinguish for sure what state the figures in the unit were meant to depict.

I like the proposed method of "marking" the state of each "battlegroup" but figures do get moved, do not necessarily fit together too well (eg pikemen facing other pikes or spears) and even inadvertently get tidied up.

I therefore prefer markers. I agree markers would be more acceptable if wounded or dead figures were used as such rather than counters. We all need new generals now so why not a number of markers? After all wounded and dead are the markers generals would have actually seen.

Michael Lane

On advantage of markers is thay can hav two sides - one labeled "No rally" so that when the counter is placed it reminds you that it can't rally this bound, then in the inter-bound you can turn it to the "can rally"

Another advantage is you can have 1 fragmented marker per unit, and show broken with 2 fragmented markers, thus when you take the last fragmented marker your army has broken.

I would prefer 1 B, but like Bruce I rather suspect that markers will be used and that 2 B will become the reality.

Perhaps to encourage nice visuals the rules should suggest using dead and wounded figures on a small base as the markers and illustrations in the rules do so, again as encouragement?

sagji wrote:On advantage of markers is thay can hav two sides - one labeled "No rally" so that when the counter is placed it reminds you that it can't rally this bound, then in the inter-bound you can turn it to the "can rally"

Nice idea, but there is then the danger that the counters would get accidentally flipped. Better to have them only one sided I think.

Hi,

counters - definitely. Having played Early Germans a lot (with lots of disordered / wavering / routing units) you need a good visual effect. We used markes in blue/yellow/red. I would like markers with single figures glued on (wounded / dead figures - like in Age of Eagles) even better.

Thorsten

I am definitely with the counters. have dabbled with Flames of War and the counters avoid all dubiety. it does not takeaway from he visual situation and indeed clarifies the situation for spectators who stop to watch a game.
John

2b.

We have had problems as well tracking some units (was this cavalry disrupted before it started pursuit?) and our next game we plan on using small coloured wooden sticks on the back or side of the unit. Side, no rally. Something to do in the interbound switching the side sticks to the back. We hope they will help us to stop forgetting rallies too.

Jos?©

2 b,

Played my first game tonight and managed to loose track of unit states. I have no problem with the use of markers. From a marketing - sales point of view I thing it adds to the presentation of the finished product.

Don M

2B then there are no disputes or confusion abour status. IMO, nice looking counters are the best solution and do not detract from the game.

I still use counters in DBM to mark completed combats and halts so there is no confusion around have we already done that one.

Peter777

Definitely 1b.

Whether using the BG`s themselves to indicate the cohesion or additional character figurines, its the looking good of the figure game that is important. Tokens or counters spoil the visual effect on the tabletop.

Perhaps you could tie up with a figure manufacturer to supply sets of custom markers. This would certainly keep up the visual effect of the game and add revenue from commission.

Don M

Counters - as an option at the very least. It will be a competition default whatever you officially write I guarantee it

Disrupted BGs get in a mess, you forget which is which, the disrupted bases block other troops movement, all sorts of shennanigans.

donm wrote:Perhaps you could tie up with a figure manufacturer to supply sets of custom markers. This would certainly keep up the visual effect of the game and add revenue from commission.

Don M

Are you seriously thinking thatJ D hasn't thoght of this already - probably several years ago at that?

In fact, why do you think this set of rules is getting written

2B (2A can be too restrictive)

In our next game we plan on using small coloured wooden cubes.

We can place two markers next to the BG when his cohesion drops, indicating that this turn can not be rallied. At the end of the Interbound Phase we must remove a marker from each BG that has two.

2B for me

I am used to counters and they are not a major problem for me.
Of course, some wounded figures or equivalent are better if you can have them.