Slitherine

Phil Giles and I fought a battle this afternoon. He took Abbassid Arab and I took Thematic Byzantine. Yet another result within 3.5 hours and this time at 800pts.

I won't be doing a battle report for this game or the previous one - I don't have the time. But some questions and observations that came from the game:


Questions

* Can a unit take two CTs per phase? i.e. test for losing a melee and then testing for a unit next to it routing because of a CT.

* When performing a CM with a BL, say a 90 degree turn and advance, do you roll a CMT for each BG within the BL or a single test?

* Can you shoot at bases of a BG that is fighting enemy but the bases being shot at are not involved in the melee? i.e. A BG of 6 Cav with the end base in contact, the second from end coutning as an overlap and 4 free elements?
If not then there is potential for cheese here to block shooting - and really there should be no reason why you cannot shoot at them as there is no danger to your own troops.

* In melee do troops of a different type (say light foot) in the second rank behind spearmen use different PoA and dice or do they add to the front base's dice?


Observations

* I thought that Thematic Byzantine cavalry mixed lancer an bow units would be not worth the points - mimicking their uselessness in DBM. However assuming the second rank of bow add to the front ranks PoA in melee this might not be the case. However shooting is a problem as 2-3 bases per BG and are always halved really means there is a good chance that you need at least 2 BGs before shooting has any chance of doing anything at all. And that is quite difficult to arrange. Therefore although not totally useless the extra +2 cost is probably not worth it. The alternative is to put the Bow in the front rank to maximise shooting and then swap them out through expansions and contractions at a later stage - not sure this is desirable in game terms or would not lead to disaster.

* The Bow* worked a lot better. But we had to agree at the beginning of the game wether they counted as Shock Troops or not - we said yes as they had lancers and there is nothing in the rules to contradict this.

* This time round the game felt like it had ended at the right time. However, four units of cavalry had been lost and a unit of Lh were fragmented.

* The use of beads to denote casualities was a great benefit in managing the book-keeping of the game with multi-unit combats. Dice are just too prone to being picked up or knocked accidentally.

* We had to use index cards at the start of the game to denote the composition of BGs. Although troops may be a realistic portrayal of the BGs it proved difficult at the start of the game to know exactly what was armed with what, what armour they had and what qaulity there were. These small differences are not often easily identifiable from the figures but make a big difference in the game. I can certainly see needing to write down what BGs are what on the table early in the game. Again this is going to clutter up the table. Not sure I have an answer to this one. And not sure that it has to be answered at this stage - it is just an observation on how we are making the game easier to play.

* Still have the impression that inflicting 2 hits in melee is as good as inflicting 4 or 6. So long as you force a CT it does not matter to what extent you inflict hits. I don't necessarily think this is a bad mechanism, it just feels wrong.

* The game is defintely fun, difficult if not impossible to bung up and you can get results in a reasonable period of time.

bddbrown wrote:

Observations

* I thought that Thematic Byzantine cavalry mixed lancer an bow units would be not worth the points - mimicking their uselessness in DBM. However assuming the second rank of bow add to the front ranks PoA in melee this might not be the case. However shooting is a problem as 2-3 bases per BG and are always halved really means there is a good chance that you need at least 2 BGs before shooting has any chance of doing anything at all. And that is quite difficult to arrange. Therefore although not totally useless the extra +2 cost is probably not worth it.

Quick historical note on Bruce's observation above.

IMO it is quite clear from the Strategikon (the main source for these units) that archery was very much a secondary factor to the lancers charge and so the rules need to give players the incentive not to expect too much from the archery. Also it makes clear that shooting from the rear ranks, where the archers specialists were, was relatively ineffective. However, we must also assume that it had some use as they were used for a long time.

nikgaukroger wrote:

bddbrown wrote:

Observations

* I thought that Thematic Byzantine cavalry mixed lancer an bow units would be not worth the points - mimicking their uselessness in DBM. However assuming the second rank of bow add to the front ranks PoA in melee this might not be the case. However shooting is a problem as 2-3 bases per BG and are always halved really means there is a good chance that you need at least 2 BGs before shooting has any chance of doing anything at all. And that is quite difficult to arrange. Therefore although not totally useless the extra +2 cost is probably not worth it.

Quick historical note on Bruce's observation above.

IMO it is quite clear from the Strategikon (the main source for these units) that archery was very much a secondary factor to the lancers charge and so the rules need to give players the incentive not to expect too much from the archery. Also it makes clear that shooting from the rear ranks, where the archers specialists were, was relatively ineffective. However, we must also assume that it had some use as they were used for a long time.

Just a note on Nik's note. (I hope Simon will answer the rest of your queries later Bruce).

2nd rank bows get 1 shooting dice per base if they are the first rank shooting. (I hope the wording in the rules makes this clear if you re-read it - if not we will have to clarify).

Thus a 4 base Byzantine cavalry BG (1/2 lancers/1/2 archers) gets 2 dice shooting, and a 6 base BG gets 3.

Thus they are 2/3 as effective at shooting as 2 ranks deep Cv bows, not 1/2 as effective.

In the Impact Phase there are no extra dice for rear-rank cavalry bowmen.

In the Melee Phase the 2nd rank bowmen fight as per their own grading. (However, in the case of the Byzantines this is the same as the front rank - same armour class, swordsmen).

Lancers count as shock troops, so Byzantine cavalry BGs are shock troops if they include any lancers. As Nik says, from reading the Strategikon, their role was to charge rather than to skirmish or engage in shoot-outs. Skirmishing was carried out by the detached horse archers.

Bi Bruce,

Thanks again for the input.

* Can a unit take two CTs per phase? i.e. test for losing a melee and then testing for a unit next to it routing because of a CT.

Yes. In the event that it has 2 simultaneous reasons to test it has a-1 - e.g. if a general died and a unit routed - to avoid too many rolls. But at present you would have the CT for a melee effect done as the melee happened and then possibly a test for generals or routs at the END of the phase.

* When performing a CM with a BL, say a 90 degree turn and advance, do you roll a CMT for each BG within the BL or a single test?

See movement section page 46 where it says you use the right hand most column of BG in the BL. You just roll once for the BL and then if it passes on that basis the whole BL does the move. I guess we need to add the 1 roll for the lot to make it clear. Thanks.

* Can you shoot at bases of a BG that is fighting enemy but the bases being shot at are not involved in the melee? i.e. A BG of 6 Cav with the end base in contact, the second from end coutning as an overlap and 4 free elements?
If not then there is potential for cheese here to block shooting - and really there should be no reason why you cannot shoot at them as there is no danger to your own troops.

You can shoot at any base that is not in combat in the first 2 ranks - either to front or as an overlap. Bullet 1 target priorities.

* In melee do troops of a different type (say light foot) in the second rank behind spearmen use different PoA and dice or do they add to the front base's dice?

What we have done is to use different coloured dice and their own POAs basd on fighting the front rank of the opponents but I don't think we've spelt that out anywhere. Only happened a couple of times in total. Will fix it.

Observations

* I thought that Thematic Byzantine cavalry mixed lancer an bow units would be not worth the points - mimicking their uselessness in DBM. However assuming the second rank of bow add to the front ranks PoA in melee this might not be the case. However shooting is a problem as 2-3 bases per BG and are always halved really means there is a good chance that you need at least 2 BGs before shooting has any chance of doing anything at all. And that is quite difficult to arrange. Therefore although not totally useless the extra +2 cost is probably not worth it. The alternative is to put the Bow in the front rank to maximise shooting and then swap them out through expansions and contractions at a later stage - not sure this is desirable in game terms or would not lead to disaster.

Sounds like a good one for the points system reviews. Agree the latter is not too desirable. 2nd rank at present adds nothing to combat as the added dice concept is there to handle mounted charged by foot an nothing else - its for FOOT. They will of course join in as normal dice in the second rank as swordsmen. I have a game wit Terry tomorrow night - maybe you could e-mail the lists and we'll try the same game as it counds a good one and I was planning a Byzantine game anyway.

* The Bow* worked a lot better. But we had to agree at the beginning of the game wether they counted as Shock Troops or not - we said yes as they had lancers and there is nothing in the rules to contradict this.

They are lancers and therefore they are shock troops. Page 19 for definition.

* This time round the game felt like it had ended at the right time. However, four units of cavalry had been lost and a unit of Lh were fragmented.

* The use of beads to denote casualities was a great benefit in managing the book-keeping of the game with multi-unit combats. Dice are just too prone to being picked up or knocked accidentally.

By this you mean you placed beads behind to show hits instead of dice? Nice idea and we'll try it. With dice I think one need a system that you stick to so in our case we use green dice for hits and only for that and nothing else. This also seems to work - and the green blends nicely into the table. White and yellow dice for combat. But having something visibly different is a nice idea. If we go with counters we could do hit markers.

* We had to use index cards at the start of the game to denote the composition of BGs. Although troops may be a realistic portrayal of the BGs it proved difficult at the start of the game to know exactly what was armed with what, what armour they had and what qaulity there were. These small differences are not often easily identifiable from the figures but make a big difference in the game. I can certainly see needing to write down what BGs are what on the table early in the game. Again this is going to clutter up the table. Not sure I have an answer to this one. And not sure that it has to be answered at this stage - it is just an observation on how we are making the game easier to play.

Opposing BGs ... interesting and fair enough. Some do this in DBM and other don't. Maybe this is an individual thing. We wondered about having players swap lists in comp games but it is difficult unless you srap ambushes and flank marches - unless I suppose ones army was on cards....and you hand over only those on table. All heavy competition stuff of course, as the general player I doubt would bother much with any of this. Any other good ideas on how to transfer relevant information in the comp games?

* Still have the impression that inflicting 2 hits in melee is as good as inflicting 4 or 6. So long as you force a CT it does not matter to what extent you inflict hits. I don't necessarily think this is a bad mechanism, it just feels wrong.

A topic that will be discussed by the authors tomorrow evening.

* The game is defintely fun, difficult if not impossible to bung up and you can get results in a reasonable period of time.

One of the questions of interest is how long it takes to get up to speed.

What would you say the curve was for you guys after 5 games? Maybe on a 0-100 scale. e.g. 30-60-70-80-90 or maybe through barriers of "muddling through beginner" , Getting the hang of it, Proficient with the basics, Confident with most mechanism. The shape and how long it takes to get to "proficient" is of much interest to us and may also be a useful guide for other testers. Any which way you could communicate that to us? Might be nice to pass on as experience for others.

Thanks for putting so much time in an getting to the 5 game post.

Si

rbodleyscott wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

bddbrown wrote: Observations

* I thought that Thematic Byzantine cavalry mixed lancer an bow units would be not worth the points - mimicking their uselessness in DBM. However assuming the second rank of bow add to the front ranks PoA in melee this might not be the case. However shooting is a problem as 2-3 bases per BG and are always halved really means there is a good chance that you need at least 2 BGs before shooting has any chance of doing anything at all. And that is quite difficult to arrange. Therefore although not totally useless the extra +2 cost is probably not worth it.

Quick historical note on Bruce's observation above.

IMO it is quite clear from the Strategikon (the main source for these units) that archery was very much a secondary factor to the lancers charge and so the rules need to give players the incentive not to expect too much from the archery. Also it makes clear that shooting from the rear ranks, where the archers specialists were, was relatively ineffective. However, we must also assume that it had some use as they were used for a long time.

Just a note on Nik's note. (I hope Simon will answer the rest of your queries later Bruce).

2nd rank bows get 1 shooting dice per base if they are the first rank shooting. (I hope the wording in the rules makes this clear if you re-read it - if not we will have to clarify).

Thus a 4 base Byzantine cavalry BG (1/2 lancers/1/2 archers) gets 2 dice shooting, and a 6 base BG gets 3.

Wow! Ok, I missed that completely. Re-reading the rules I can see how this could be read as such. Maybe just adding the following to the sentence ", even if the 1st rank of shooters is not the 1st rank of the BG."

An example to follow this up would probably also be a good idea. In fact a line of shooting examples going from simple to complicated would not go amiss.

rbodleyscott wrote:
Thus they are 2/3 as effective at shooting as 2 ranks deep Cv bows, not 1/2 as effective.

In the Impact Phase there are no extra dice for rear-rank cavalry bowmen.

In the Melee Phase the 2nd rank bowmen fight as per their own grading. (However, in the case of the Byzantines this is the same as the front rank - same armour class, swordsmen).

Lancers count as shock troops, so Byzantine cavalry BGs are shock troops if they include any lancers. As Nik says, from reading the Strategikon, their role was to charge rather than to skirmish or engage in shoot-outs. Skirmishing was carried out by the detached horse archers.

Thank you very much for this. Clears everything up and I think also addresses the slight game balance issues I had. I think this really works well.

Wow! Ok, I missed that completely. Re-reading the rules I can see how this could be read as such. Maybe just adding the following to the sentence ", even if the 1st rank of shooters is not the 1st rank of the BG."

An example to follow this up would probably also be a good idea. In fact a line of shooting examples going from simple to complicated would not go amiss.

Thanks Bruce. A good idea to make it clearer. WE are working on more diags and examples at the moment. We'll build that into the list.

Cheers

Si

shall wrote:

* When performing a CM with a BL, say a 90 degree turn and advance, do you roll a CMT for each BG within the BL or a single test?

See movement section page 46 where it says you use the right hand most column of BG in the BL. You just roll once for the BL and then if it passes on that basis the whole BL does the move. I guess we need to add the 1 roll for the lot to make it clear. Thanks.

Ok. It's the bit on page 47 which confused me -> Simple and Complex Moves -> 3rd Bullet -> sub-bullet
"??? He can only select moves under the type ???Advance??? for a Battle Line move."

shall wrote:

* Can you shoot at bases of a BG that is fighting enemy but the bases being shot at are not involved in the melee? i.e. A BG of 6 Cav with the end base in contact, the second from end coutning as an overlap and 4 free elements?
If not then there is potential for cheese here to block shooting - and really there should be no reason why you cannot shoot at them as there is no danger to your own troops.

You can shoot at any base that is not in combat in the first 2 ranks - either to front or as an overlap. Bullet 1 target priorities.

No worries. However there is no definition for "Targetable" I think.

I would just like to say at this point that I know we(I) are being a little picky at the moment. However I would take this as a positive sign. I've had two cracking games that worked very well. The games have gone smoothly. The only complaints I have now are the picky stuff. I am looking for cheesy stuff and the paucity of results is a little frustrating.

shall wrote:

* In melee do troops of a different type (say light foot) in the second rank behind spearmen use different PoA and dice or do they add to the front base's dice?

What we have done is to use different coloured dice and their own POAs basd on fighting the front rank of the opponents but I don't think we've spelt that out anywhere. Only happened a couple of times in total. Will fix it.

No worries. It really only happens when you get casualties and it does not have a big effect on the game. Again, maybe this feedback is too picky at this stage?

shall wrote:

Observations

* I thought that Thematic Byzantine cavalry mixed lancer an bow units would be not worth the points - mimicking their uselessness in DBM. However assuming the second rank of bow add to the front ranks PoA in melee this might not be the case. However shooting is a problem as 2-3 bases per BG and are always halved really means there is a good chance that you need at least 2 BGs before shooting has any chance of doing anything at all. And that is quite difficult to arrange. Therefore although not totally useless the extra +2 cost is probably not worth it. The alternative is to put the Bow in the front rank to maximise shooting and then swap them out through expansions and contractions at a later stage - not sure this is desirable in game terms or would not lead to disaster.

Sounds like a good one for the points system reviews. Agree the latter is not too desirable. 2nd rank at present adds nothing to combat as the added dice concept is there to handle mounted charged by foot an nothing else - its for FOOT. They will of course join in as normal dice in the second rank as swordsmen. I have a game wit Terry tomorrow night - maybe you could e-mail the lists and we'll try the same game as it counds a good one and I was planning a Byzantine game anyway.

No worries. We were not adding any dice at Impact for the second rank. Just melee. I'll send you my list. I think Phil's was on a piece of paper.

shall wrote:

* The Bow* worked a lot better. But we had to agree at the beginning of the game wether they counted as Shock Troops or not - we said yes as they had lancers and there is nothing in the rules to contradict this.

They are lancers and therefore they are shock troops. Page 19 for definition.

Indeed the only way to interprete the rules. I think I probably felt a little aggreved at the time about it!

Actually thinking about this I wonder whether shock troops have solved the lance/bow/swordsmen issue entirely. I actually think arming cavalry like this now is not a problem any more. The real problem was you could act like a skirmisher and evade, but now that shock troops cannot do this I think that lance/bow/swordsmen cavalry would be fine. In fact, I think that I would prefer to see cavalry that had bows being able to shoot and allow the lance+shock combination to take care of how they were used historically. At the end of the day if they did not charge then they could have sat in front of the enemy and shot them up.

Something for the rules writers and list writers to consider.

Also as an addendum, we had a lot of shock troops in the game and to be honest the CMT to stop charging came in very rarely - why - because most people know this and don't get their lancers into a position where they don't want to charge in the first place! It really only comes into play when you get a BG into the wrong place at the wrong time - justwhen you want the CMT to become important. i.e. my reservations at first glance seem to be unfounded and the mechanism in general works very well. It may just need a little tweaking - although I have no thoughts or suggestions regarding that at present.

shall wrote:

* The use of beads to denote casualities was a great benefit in managing the book-keeping of the game with multi-unit combats. Dice are just too prone to being picked up or knocked accidentally.

By this you mean you placed beads behind to show hits instead of dice? Nice idea and we'll try it. With dice I think one need a system that you stick to so in our case we use green dice for hits and only for that and nothing else. This also seems to work - and the green blends nicely into the table. White and yellow dice for combat. But having something visibly different is a nice idea. If we go with counters we could do hit markers.

Yes. It think using different coloured dice is fine. And it really does not matter what is used so long as it works.

shall wrote:

* We had to use index cards at the start of the game to denote the composition of BGs. Although troops may be a realistic portrayal of the BGs it proved difficult at the start of the game to know exactly what was armed with what, what armour they had and what qaulity there were. These small differences are not often easily identifiable from the figures but make a big difference in the game. I can certainly see needing to write down what BGs are what on the table early in the game. Again this is going to clutter up the table. Not sure I have an answer to this one. And not sure that it has to be answered at this stage - it is just an observation on how we are making the game easier to play.

Opposing BGs ... interesting and fair enough. Some do this in DBM and other don't. Maybe this is an individual thing. We wondered about having players swap lists in comp games but it is difficult unless you srap ambushes and flank marches - unless I suppose ones army was on cards....and you hand over only those on table. All heavy competition stuff of course, as the general player I doubt would bother much with any of this. Any other good ideas on how to transfer relevant information in the comp games?

Indeed. All very competition focused. Mea culpa. Not easy to solve. It is even worse when you consider that calculating points is even more difficult. All to easy to slip better class troops onto the table by accident...

I've written a spreadsheet to calculate armies - you'll get it with the army list when I send it. And in all seriousness I'll be writing a program to record enemy armies for the first competition and run it on my mobile phone. The extra dimensions of AoW come at a cost of complexity. I suspect a few years down the road it will all be second nature, but for now it is just hard enough to warrant a little electronic help.

shall wrote:

* Still have the impression that inflicting 2 hits in melee is as good as inflicting 4 or 6. So long as you force a CT it does not matter to what extent you inflict hits. I don't necessarily think this is a bad mechanism, it just feels wrong.

A topic that will be discussed by the authors tomorrow evening.

It's not a serious issue, but worth a talk especially over a bottle of red.

shall wrote:

* The game is defintely fun, difficult if not impossible to bung up and you can get results in a reasonable period of time.

One of the questions of interest is how long it takes to get up to speed.

What would you say the curve was for you guys after 5 games? Maybe on a 0-100 scale. e.g. 30-60-70-80-90 or maybe through barriers of "muddling through beginner" , Getting the hang of it, Proficient with the basics, Confident with most mechanism. The shape and how long it takes to get to "proficient" is of much interest to us and may also be a useful guide for other testers. Any which way you could communicate that to us? Might be nice to pass on as experience for others.

A topic of emails among the play-group now. I reckon the fourth games was a turning point for us - maybe the new rules but also I reckon there was just a light-bulb moment. I reckon we are now at the comfortable with 80-90%% of the game mechanics (some of the chariot type stuff is unclear because we haven't played it yet) and we are really settling down into tactics on the battle field and looking for what works and does not work.

Phil is on his second game and looking for his third. Looking at his progress I reckon he'll hit the sweet spot around the same time either in his third or fourth game. A good measure of this is whether you can get a game to completition the 3.5 hours - and it was a competitive one rather than a walk-over.

I would certainly be comfortable entering my first competition at this point which I reckon is pretty good going really and a pretty good recommendation for the game.

I would also say that I am seriously considering starting a campaign with these rules as well and as soon as they are available for club play I'll definitely be doing that!

shall wrote:Thanks for putting so much time in an getting to the 5 game post.

No worries at all. I am really enjoying myself. I'll probably try to do a full battle report every so often, maybe once a month and time permitting.

Bruce thanks for all that.

Not much to add other than we'll catch the mix up on BL bullets - the two need to work better together.

Non of your comments are too picky at all. I just wanted to get a check on major vs minor issue in your minds to help us think about them. Keep them coming however detailed they seem as we are moving into the land of fixing details now.

Your game 4 threshold is very helpful. It will be good to see how others feel about this.

Look forward to getting you list and trying it out. And also your hi-tech stuff as well. Must say when I started DBM, my first spreadsheet as a % kill table for factors against each other with and without overlaps and flanks......I am not sure I am looking forward to you using your mobile in anger in a game. I shall feel sorely under-equipped with my steam powered phone

Cheers

Si

bddbrown wrote:
Actually thinking about this I wonder whether shock troops have solved the lance/bow/swordsmen issue entirely. I actually think arming cavalry like this now is not a problem any more. The real problem was you could act like a skirmisher and evade, but now that shock troops cannot do this I think that lance/bow/swordsmen cavalry would be fine. In fact, I think that I would prefer to see cavalry that had bows being able to shoot and allow the lance+shock combination to take care of how they were used historically. At the end of the day if they did not charge then they could have sat in front of the enemy and shot them up.

Something for the rules writers and list writers to consider.

To be honest I think the current approach of not having lance, bow, swordsman cavalry is going to get it pretty much right. IMO troops pretty much relied primarily on either the lance or the bow and not both equally - with the Byzantine formations being a bit of an oddity. Sarmatians are a good example, albeit at one end of the spectrum, of troops who carry a bow but hardly ever use it - letting them have a shooting option would be wrong historically even if they had to pass a test not to charge.

After the Japanese, Byzatium is my favourite area of history. I'm looking forward to trying out Bruce's list tomorrow night.

Si

I agree wholeheartedly with the 3/4/5 game threshold. I felt I took a step backwards in my second game, but that was partly due to just wanting to try some things out to see how the mechanics worked. Considering in now I think I have a much better grasp of things, and the game does seem to be coming together. I completely echo the feeling of a lack of cheese, and that is the primary thing that has me so enthused about the whole project. The troop interactions so far feel ok.

Just one question.....are you after picky questions yet, in the sense of questioning the wording of things?

Phil

Hi Phil,

By all means now chip in on picky items and we will do our best to catch as many as we can and iterate towards a final solution. We are keeping a bug list split by priorities. Can't guarantee we'll respond to them all but we are now looking to tighten concepts and wording as we get towards vs3.

Keep the great game reports and issues coming.

Cheers

Si