Slitherine

Current pinning rules are a bit too loose: since the enemy only need to be partially (i.e. toenail) in front of the restricting BG. Consequently it is very difficult to restrict manouver sufficiently to cause a problem for slippery troop types.

Suggestion to improve (and more draconian restrictions are possible):

"All bases in the restricted area of an enemy BG must be at least partially directly to the front of that battle group at the end of the movement phase."

The idea being to get bit more of a "staying in the headlights" effect.

Second suggestion. Being in the restricted area of two enemies gives you more options, not less. This is counter intuitive and feels cheesy to new players. Suggest this is changed to:

"BGs in the restricted area of more than one enemy BG must randomly select which BG to react to". Words need improvement, of course. Idea is to make multiple pins more difficult to deal with.

Graham, for the in more than 1 RA, why not just change to the restrictions of all the RAs apply - could mean the unit can't move at all when surrounded by 3 units at 120 degress apart?

timmy1 wrote:Graham, for the in more than 1 RA, why not just change to the restrictions of all the RAs apply - could mean the unit can't move at all when surrounded by 3 units at 120 degress apart?

Well two units exerting a RA at a 90 angle is pretty restricting if both apply.

It would make it easier to prevent LH from scooting away.

A slight overlap of RAs could create a thin slice that they have to stay in.

I would just make it the closest element that you have to respond to. That would take away the fact that it is currently an advantage to be pinned by two BGs which isn't very sensible.

I think that making troops conform to all RAs would lead to some horrid umpire calls. The RA rules as they stand are simple and clean but there are the issues of a BG that is entirely in front slipping away so that almost none is in front and that two RAs are actually weaker than one both of which need to be addressed.

I would go for the closest RA as the one that applies and dice if equal.

ethan wrote:I would just make it the closest element that you have to respond to. That would take away the fact that it is currently an advantage to be pinned by two BGs which isn't very sensible.

Closest would certainly be better than RAW. I was just a little concerned that RA is only 2MU so it could be quite difficult to determine 'closest'. Also, I can just see arguments over whether BGs are equidistant or not.

Rather than allow the passive unit to choose which unit it is affected by, as is the case at the moment, allow the aggressor to choose. This would reflect the dominant position of the aggressor and give a real advantage to 'pinning' with two units.

i had sugested to keep it as it is except that it should be expanded to the charge range

MatthewP wrote:Rather than allow the passive unit to choose which unit it is affected by, as is the case at the moment, allow the aggressor to choose. This would reflect the dominant position of the aggressor and give a real advantage to 'pinning' with two units.

I am a little concerned that this would leave open some nasty 'tricks'. Things like having one BG right in the face of the enemy then just 'tagging' a tiny corner to limit massively where they can go.

Another possible one would be that the RA you have to react to is the one that has the most bases in or infront of it. Combined with the all bases starting in the RA have to remain infront idea and it might be a pretty clean solution.

hammy wrote: Another possible one would be that the RA you have to react to is the one that has the most bases in or infront of it. Combined with the all bases starting in the RA have to remain infront idea and it might be a pretty clean solution.

I agree a clean solution is needed, but i am not sure "most bases" is clean.

So Pike and column formations will do a better job pinning often?

I thought I posted this before, but . .

How about prioritize RA based on what is most directly to the victim's front, with the other RA applying if/when the target moves out of the primary. Basically, the pin you see trumps other pins. So front > flank > rear.

So a BG pinned to its front and flank would first conform to the front, but still would conform to the flank if it exited the primary RA.

I like the "to the front" aspect because the target cannot eliminate the other RA, and it allows RA priority to change. "Closest RA" forces the rules to eliminate the second RA completely, or somehow manage what happens when the closer RA is no longer closer during a move (way too complicated).

grahambriggs wrote:Current pinning rules are a bit too loose: since the enemy only need to be partially (i.e. toenail) in front of the restricting BG. Consequently it is very difficult to restrict manouver sufficiently to cause a problem for slippery troop types.

Suggestion to improve (and more draconian restrictions are possible):

"All bases in the restricted area of an enemy BG must be at least partially directly to the front of that battle group at the end of the movement phase."

The idea being to get bit more of a "staying in the headlights" effect.

Second suggestion. Being in the restricted area of two enemies gives you more options, not less. This is counter intuitive and feels cheesy to new players. Suggest this is changed to:

"BGs in the restricted area of more than one enemy BG must randomly select which BG to react to". Words need improvement, of course. Idea is to make multiple pins more difficult to deal with.

seconded! Bundle the roll to see which RA matters with the complex move test timing (ie once you make the roll you have to move that BG or not at all)

spikemesq wrote:I like the "to the front" aspect because the target cannot eliminate the other RA, and it allows RA priority to change. "Closest RA" forces the rules to eliminate the second RA completely, or somehow manage what happens when the closer RA is no longer closer during a move (way too complicated).

Have it be the closest BG at the start of the move. Yes it is true the the pinned you could change the priority, but the pinners would get a chance to respond and you can never "so close no one else could be closer" without touching which is not legal.

Not that anyone cares but i think they work fine simple easy to understand and it works for me. Making it more complex will not IMO only make FOG a better set of rules.

david53 wrote:Not that anyone cares but i think they work fine simple easy to understand and it works for me. Making it more complex will not IMO only make FOG a better set of rules.

You think it sensible that drilled MF pinned front and flank by lancers have more options than those pinned to the front only? Why?

Possibly one could construct a line that bisects the angle between the two pinning BGs and require the pinned BG to remain touching this line.

However, the added complexity over simply removing the choice of which BG to respond to may not be justified by the benefit.

grahambriggs wrote:

david53 wrote:Not that anyone cares but i think they work fine simple easy to understand and it works for me. Making it more complex will not IMO only make FOG a better set of rules.

You think it sensible that drilled MF pinned front and flank by lancers have more options than those pinned to the front only? Why?

But why did the Lancers move within 2mu you can measure in FOG and to be honest its not hard to just pin them with one unit done it myself many times. As I said it just makes it more complex were it only takes a bit of thinking to stop it happening and save making more rules to learn.

david53 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:

david53 wrote:Not that anyone cares but i think they work fine simple easy to understand and it works for me. Making it more complex will not IMO only make FOG a better set of rules.

You think it sensible that drilled MF pinned front and flank by lancers have more options than those pinned to the front only? Why?

But why did the Lancers move within 2mu you can measure in FOG and to be honest its not hard to just pin them with one unit done it myself many times. As I said it just makes it more complex were it only takes a bit of thinking to stop it happening and save making more rules to learn.

Because when you play a beginner it seems daft and put them off when you do your cheesy move?

david53 wrote:Not that anyone cares but i think they work fine simple easy to understand and it works for me. Making it more complex will not IMO only make FOG a better set of rules.

Some of the options suggested (e.g., enemy chooses which unit is the "pinning" unit when there are several). Whilst one may measure so that only one unit is less than 2" and all others are at slightly greater than 2", this seems a little gamey and it's counter-intuitive. To be pinned is a consequence of enemy actions. The greater the numbers of enemy that are "pinning" a BG should increase the enemy's options and not the pinned BG. There is some merit to allowing the enemy to choose the "pinning" BG. Although this should be tested.

Of course we should prefer a rule that is as simple as possible yet still effective.

david53 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:

david53 wrote:Not that anyone cares but i think they work fine simple easy to understand and it works for me. Making it more complex will not IMO only make FOG a better set of rules.

You think it sensible that drilled MF pinned front and flank by lancers have more options than those pinned to the front only? Why?

But why did the Lancers move within 2mu you can measure in FOG and to be honest its not hard to just pin them with one unit done it myself many times. As I said it just makes it more complex were it only takes a bit of thinking to stop it happening and save making more rules to learn.

Perhaps they moved there as a result of a VMD.

TBH "You must respond to the restricted area of X" is no more complex than "You choose which restricted area you will respond to", as long as "X" is reasonably simple.

Certainly if "X" is "the BG chosen by the pinning player" it is no more complex and if there is any cheese it helps the player who has the tactically advantageous position and deserves to get some advantage out of it.