Slitherine

Just out of curiosity, does anyone ever take these when they are optional? Just thought I'd throw this up here while the new edition is in beta.

The reason I ask, is I've never seen anybody do so.

2009 Britcon. I won.

philqw78 wrote:2009 Britcon. I won.

Didn't that involve a bet? That you also won?

hazelbark wrote:

philqw78 wrote:2009 Britcon. I won.

Didn't that involve a bet? That you also won?

OK, so my reaosns may not have been completely logical.

philqw78 wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

philqw78 wrote:2009 Britcon. I won.

Didn't that involve a bet? That you also won?

OK, so my reaosns may not have been completely logical.

And that differs from the rest of your life how?

I might take them if I could garrison them. Or the loss of the camp was more of a blow to my army. As it is, I don't think they give me value for the points expended.

In most of my games with Romans, the enemy didn't make it to my camp OR sacked it so early I couldn't save it.
So wasted points for me.

From the Roman point of view the points are wasted. For the cost involved I do feel that the Roman camp should have a shooting element to portray the light artillery ( or legionaries/Auxiliary troops armed with slings etc). which was integral to the legions but tend not to appear on the table due to the light artillery rules.

ShrubMiK wrote:I might take them if I could garrison them. Or the loss of the camp was more of a blow to my army. As it is, I don't think they give me value for the points expended.

Great Idea being able to garrison the camp.

Possible implementation:
- attackign camp treated as attacking FF (ie cant overlap, treated as not open ground etc...)
- can be garrissoned by a single BG that is fought instead of the normal rules

outcome;
- gives a bit more depth to the camp play
- gives a logical place for the rubbish unit (most likely MF levies of some type)
- more cost effective and a handy piece of 'terrain' for those foot armies fighting on the steppe
- Gives me a Fog use for seven pieces of Baueda fortifications with space to visually portray the defenders manning the walls.

anthony

expendablecinc wrote:

ShrubMiK wrote:I might take them if I could garrison them. Or the loss of the camp was more of a blow to my army. As it is, I don't think they give me value for the points expended.

Great Idea being able to garrison the camp.

Possible implementation:
- attackign camp treated as attacking FF (ie cant overlap, treated as not open ground etc...)
- can be garrissoned by a single BG that is fought instead of the normal rules

outcome;
- gives a bit more depth to the camp play
- gives a logical place for the rubbish unit (most likely MF levies of some type)
- more cost effective and a handy piece of 'terrain' for those foot armies fighting on the steppe
- Gives me a Fog use for seven pieces of Baueda fortifications with space to visually portray the defenders manning the walls.

anthony

i had already proposed that but no reaction from designers

We wanted to keep the camp rules as simple as possible - it was a design decision - so as not to distract from the main action.

However, we over-costed fortified camps and they will probably go down a lot in points cost when we get around the revising the points system. Personally I think 12 points would be about right.

However, we over-costed fortified camps and they will probably go down a lot in points cost when we get around the revising the points system. Personally I think 12 points would be about right.

A definite improvement Richard. I know historical colour is important but any chance of them making them optional for all armies - including the Romans please?

petedalby wrote:

However, we over-costed fortified camps and they will probably go down a lot in points cost when we get around the revising the points system. Personally I think 12 points would be about right.

A definite improvement Richard. I know historical colour is important but any chance of them making them optional for all armies - including the Romans please?

You would have to lobby Nik on that.

rbodleyscott wrote:

petedalby wrote:

However, we over-costed fortified camps and they will probably go down a lot in points cost when we get around the revising the points system. Personally I think 12 points would be about right.

A definite improvement Richard. I know historical colour is important but any chance of them making them optional for all armies - including the Romans please?

You would have to lobby Nik on that.

If they are cheaper I'd actually be more inclined to make them compulsory for more armies ...

If they are cheaper I'd actually be more inclined to make them compulsory for more armies ...

Not quite the response I was hoping for....

Wasn't a Roman army destroyed by slaves because they didn't fortify their camp?

petedalby wrote: Not quite the response I was hoping for....

Be careful what you ask for ...

Wasn't a Roman army destroyed by slaves because they didn't fortify their camp?

Possibly. However, the FoG lists do not set out to cover every single historical possibility, but to be broadly typical in order to avoid (hopefully) the wet Wednesday afternoon in 3AD option that somehow exploits a rule nerf.

That said optional for all will be considered as it is also a rational approach

That said optional for all will be considered as it is also a rational approach

Huzzah!

Of course I was in no way influenced by the supply of Testudo figures ...