Slitherine

We've had two games now where battle lines have used the 90 degrees turn maneouver and it has caused more than a raised eye-brow. In our latest game a line of 5 BGs of 3x2 defesnive spearmen performed the maneouver and a line of 32 pike aswell. The overall effect is to give infantry a very whizzy feeling on the table.

I will exaggerate the issue with an example that you could easily see in a competition.

Take 36 drilled pikemen in a single line and deploy them across the table (144cm wide). The enemy advances in glee and just before they arrive within 6 MU you turn 90 degrees into a single element wide column (54cm long) and advance 3 MU (7.62cm). The last man has now moved 97.62cm in a single move or just under a metre. Now that is whizzy.

There are now two follow moves that seem particularly bad - if you have a general with the BL and get in a second move.

Option 1. You may now expand by 2 bases and advance another 3MU. This leaves you with a block 3 wide and 12 deep (18cm). The last man has now moved 141.24cm in a single movement phase. Now that is seriously whizzy. And don't forget this could be either right or left, so the enemy has no idea which way you are running.
The next bound you may now execute a 90 degrees turn and you have solidly formed pike formation with three BGs next to each other 2 wide and 6 deep. You could of course only expand in the above example by 1 base and execute the turn to end up 3 wide and 4 deep which is perfect. Yikes.
Or as part of your contract and advance you could perform a wheel as well and nearly get round to facing the enemy anyway. Although your BGs would be lined up behind each other rather than next to each other.

Option 2. You now turn 90 degrees to face the enemy. As you are only 54cm long, that means you may only end up with a new frontage of 54 / 4 = 13 or 14 elements wide. Effectively you've contracted 23 bases in one bound with this manouver. Cool!

Although we've not seen anything like these extremes, Phil did pull a maeouver with a legion block (90 degree turn plus expansion) which was turned a problem hole into a nice attack. And Stephen used this trick with his defensive spearmen to essentially hide them behind his cavalry - although to less effect as they were not drilled. And I used it to get our Pikes in the last game to change the angle of attack unexpectedly quickly - quickly enough to catch a couple of units of lancers.


Also, it seems a little strange that when you can turn 90 degrees and then turn back you cannot end up in the same formation that you started? Sure it is an artefact of using bases, but it seems broken. Sorry to raise only problems on this one, but I don't have any suggestions for a remedy just at the moment beyond limiting the distance a single base can travel in a move.

this is a movement (stinking bishop) cheese example, but it sounds similar in its "erm, what??" factor to the maneuver I described where my spearmen were able to turn and advance to their right after knowing the results of a combat in the impact phase.

Should troops be able to do any sort of turn (other than wheeling) within say 6MU of enemy ?

Indeed. Very similar to an earlier comment - effectively you can let the enemy get to 6 MU, turn around 180 degrees and run away (if you have a general with the BL) - making it very difficult to catch them.

Turning your flank or rear to the enemy, even outside of charge range, should be a very dangerous thing. One idea was to force a CT if it was within 12MU of an enemy unit with their front facing you. The rationale being a 180 degrees turn can easily turn into a rout especially with poor quality troops. I reckon exposing your flank is nearly as bad - would certainly make most units a little unhappy - especially poorly trained ones where you want them to be facing the enemy at all times.

I'm sure the authors will have a view but you could limit any 2nd move within 12 MUs to an Advance or Wheel only?

Pete

bddbrown wrote:I will exaggerate the issue with an example that you could easily see in a competition.

Your point is taken.

Although:
- it is unlikely anyone would want to deploy pike 1 rank deep in these rules, it would be a really bad idea.
- 2nd moves have to be from the "Advance" box, so cannot include an expansion nor a second turn.

The authors will need to think on this.

A simple solution, however, would be to only allow a 90 degree turn without an advance - as we have done for 180 degree turns.

Then (only if you are outside 6" of the enemy and have a general) you can also advance 1 move in the new direction as a 2nd move.

I think the closing up issue is not really a serious problem because (unlike in DBM) forming up in very shallow lines is very dangerous. We don't want to get too hung up on "how far troops can march in a given time" - it is not how the basic premise of the rules works - they are supposed to be episodic.

Thanks Richard for the corrections. I take your points on the allowed moves and will look into this (i.e. how much cheese is there left after all). This brings up a point that we might be getting a little too familiar with the rules and not reading things through in a rush to get results. I'll take this on board for our next game and make sure we spend a little more time double checking things.

I would agree deploying 1 rank deep is a bad idea but only if you intend to leave them like that. If the intention is to provide flexability, out fox or wrong step your opponent and fight in deeper ranks somewhere else on the battle field entirely, then it is a good idea. And it is cheesy IMHO. Hence I can see it being used at every opportunity by the wargaming fraternity!

bddbrown wrote:I would agree deploying 1 rank deep is a bad idea but only if you intend to leave them like that. If the intention is to provide flexability, out fox or wrong step your opponent and fight in deeper ranks somewhere else on the battle field entirely, then it is a good idea.

Very good point. We certainly need to stop that.

I've been looking at the rules to see where it says that 2nd moves have to be from the "advance" box. Can someone point me in the right direction.

I've been giving BL some thought maybe it is just as simple as removing the ability to perform 90 degree or 180 degree turns with Battle Lines. Plus I would quite like to see a clarification about how BGs must be aligned in a BL - i.e. it should be limited to a line of BG rather than U, T, L shapes or even columns. I can see potential cheese otherwise.

bddbrown wrote:I've been looking at the rules to see where it says that 2nd moves have to be from the "advance" box. Can someone point me in the right direction.

You are right, it does not say that. But it probably should.

I've been giving BL some thought maybe it is just as simple as removing the ability to perform 90 degree or 180 degree turns with Battle Lines. Plus I would quite like to see a clarification about how BGs must be aligned in a BL - i.e. it should be limited to a line of BG rather than U, T, L shapes or even columns. I can see potential cheese otherwise.

Originally we started off with BL only being able to "Advance" and all non-skimirshers having to be side by side in line. However, we wanted people to be able to move reserve forces of more than one BG about, and that proved difficult with those restrictions.

I tend to agree - it probably should read that.

If BL are kept as they are they they need a lot of work to clarify how they work. Here are the list of questions we generated from the last game and my thoughts over the last couple of days:

* If you have a BL of say 4 BGs in a T formation and you turn 90 degrees, how are the bases arranged?


* Taking a BL column of BGs, what happens when you expand say 2 bases?


* What happens to the formation mentioned at the end of the first question when you try to expand?


* Can you expand the middle BG of a BL?

rbodleyscott wrote:

bddbrown wrote:I've been looking at the rules to see where it says that 2nd moves have to be from the "advance" box. Can someone point me in the right direction.

You are right, it does not say that. But it probably should.

I've been giving BL some thought maybe it is just as simple as removing the ability to perform 90 degree or 180 degree turns with Battle Lines. Plus I would quite like to see a clarification about how BGs must be aligned in a BL - i.e. it should be limited to a line of BG rather than U, T, L shapes or even columns. I can see potential cheese otherwise.

Originally we started off with BL only being able to "Advance" and all non-skimirshers having to be side by side in line. However, we wanted people to be able to move reserve forces of more than one BG about, and that proved difficult with those restrictions.

So would it be a good idea for us to continue playtesting but limiting second moves to those in the advance box, or should we maximise cheese?

Phil

But a 2 deep BG turning 90 degrees ends in a block 2 bases wide? Unless there is insufficient room?

So the diagrams you've posted aren't actually right?

Pete

My apologies. The elements are heavy foot. Therefore the depth of 2 lines of infantry is 30mm, which is less than a base width. Therefore when they turn they must end up 1 wide.

If it was 3 lines of infantry then they would have the choice of being 1-2 elements wide.

From the Rules p48 -> Turning 90 Degrees -> 1st Bullet Point:

* Battle groups making a 90-degree turn end in a block whose width is 1 base per full or partial base width depth of the original formation or 1 less than this (to a minimum of 1) if there is insufficient room.


The bit base width depth which is the confusing bit I think. Interesting to see if I have got it wrong!

No - it's probably me! If I knew how to use those Emoticons I'd be blushing now!

We'll certainly be clarifying this in the near future.

I can only say at the moment, that the solution will be more restrictive than at present, although, if you read the rules to the letter, you'll find that turning and moving is impossible in most cases.

First, you turn all the BG's which end in a formation as described under 'turning'

??? The front of the block must be level with the original side edge of the battle group. The side edge (on the side facing the original facing of the battle group) must be level with its original front edge.
??? Rear ranks must as far as possible match the width of the front rank.
??? Any partial rank must be the rearmost rank.
??? If a BG attempting to turn to flank cannot place ALL of its bases into a formation that satisfies the above rules, then the turn cannot be made.

In most cases this will leave the BG's seperated from each other.

The definition of a battline is as follows:

A Battle Line (BL) is a formation of battle groups that can be moved together until such time as they break formation either because the player chooses to separate them, or as a result of the events of the battle.

Since after turning the BG's have broken formation, they can no longer move as a BL.
The only BL's that can trun and move under the current rules are BL's entirely of MF.

We need to come up with something that allows BL to turn without breaking formation.

I think you might have missed the following at p.50 under "Turning 90 Degrees" bullet point 6:

If a Battle Line turns 90 degrees into a ???column??? of battle groups, the BG that will be at the front of the ???column??? turns as normal and the others close up to maintain the integrity of the BL. If the move also includes an advance, this is measured after the BL has closed up. (Thus some BGs may move further than their normal move distance).

BLs aren't allowed to expand or contract. (I checked the rules this time!)

bddbrown wrote: * Taking a BL column of BGs, what happens when you expand say 2 bases?


* What happens to the formation mentioned at the end of the first question when you try to expand?


* Can you expand the middle BG of a BL?

I think you might have missed the following at p.50 under "Turning 90 Degrees" bullet point 6:

Quote:
If a Battle Line turns 90 degrees into a ???column??? of battle groups, the BG that will be at the front of the ???column??? turns as normal and the others close up to maintain the integrity of the BL. If the move also includes an advance, this is measured after the BL has closed up. (Thus some BGs may move further than their normal move distance).

I'm impressed - you know the rules better than I do. (not I've ever needed to turn a BL sidways)

Don't have the rules to hand, but I am pretty sure that BLs aren't allowed to expand or contract under the current rules.

They aren't. The rules actually state:

??? The following restrictions apply to Battle Lines.
??? Battle Lines can only make moves from the following sections on the Simple & Complex Moves chart (P.2):
 Advance.
 Double Wheel.
 Turns. (Only if there are no enemy within 6 MUs of any part of the Battle Line).
 2nd Moves. (With normal restrictions - see P.2).

You could read that the 2nd move could include an expansion, but you'll find that loophole closed shortly.

Crossed posting with Terry but this is what I said.
----

Ok. I think this is a lot of misreading and too quick play. I've already mentioned this, but next game we'll spend a little time checking that we are doing things correctly and not making assumptions.

I agree, you cannot expand or contract. The relevant bit being p.47 - top of the page -

* The following restrictions apply to Battle Lines.
* Battle Lines can only make moves from the following sections on the Simple & Complex Moves chart (P.48):
* Advance.
* Double Wheel.
* Turns. (Only if there are no enemy within 6 MUs of any part of the Battle Line).
* 2nd Moves. (With normal restrictions - see P.45).

However we might want to tighten up on the 2nd Moves bit as this would allow any "green" move (i.e. expansion or contraction) on the second move. However I admit this is a little pedantic.