Deploying LOC

[hazelbark]

Lets say you have a road that is running parallel to your base edge then turns and goes off base edge.

This road is exactly the distance from your base edge so an LOC marker can touch the road and base edge.
It can be placed in this position correct? It meets the definition of where it can be placed.

What if the road connects to another road at a 90 degree angle and that 2nd road goes off base edge?

The good news is it opens up defender flexibility which is needed, but seems a little gamey.

[BrettPT]

Gamey? To my mind this would downright reek of cheese.
I see no reason in the rules why someone cannot do this, however perhaps the derision of their opponent would discourage them from doing so.

[terrys]

Gamey? To my mind this would downright reek of cheese.
I see no reason in the rules why someone cannot do this, however perhaps the derision of their opponent would discourage them from doing so.

I've seen it done - Both players agreed it was cheesy, but allowable under the rules.
Perhaps I should add a restriction that it should also be within 3MU of where the road leaves the rear edge of the table.

[hazelbark]

Well I was thinking through this.

It is easily negated if the attacker wants to take all the roads. Note this is something we see too much of and I would like less. Essentially the attacker can always set it up that the defender has only 1 road for the LOC to be placed on. Then all the attacking roads come in so the attacker can choose multiple avenues of attack and the defender has even more complications. The number of games where the defender LOC basically sits at a road net that is the hub of many roads is way too common. I have had many games where each French battery can start limbered on a road and double move then unlimber with a CMT.

Giving the defender more leeway of locating the LOC is a good thing in my view.

So if you restrict the LOC placement, then you ought to do something to increase road options for defender. Like any attacker placed road that connects to a building on the defenders side of the board automatically add a road that runs as directly possible off the defenders board edge. and/or the the LOC can be placed either at the road point or within 4 MU of a building that touches the defenders board edge.

[terrys]

It is easily negated if the attacker wants to take all the roads. Note this is something we see too much of and I would like less. Essentially the attacker can always set it up that the defender has only 1 road for the LOC to be placed on. Then all the attacking roads come in so the attacker can choose multiple avenues of attack and the defender has even more complications. The number of games where the defender LOC basically sits at a road net that is the hub of many roads is way too common. I have had many games where each French battery can start limbered on a road and double move then unlimber with a CMT.

Must be something local to your group - I've never seen it done, at least not as a deliberate and consistent ploy.
I'd certainly consider allowing an LOC to be placed adjacent to a building that touches the defenders rear edge - On the grounds that buildings should always have a road passing to or through them.

[hazelbark]

Really we have it common

If you don't want other pieces of terrain as an attacker, then why not load up on the roads? Its all upside advantage. That's our theory.

[Blathergut]

I tend to nab the roads as well. I know where the enemy LoC will be. I can move more quickly, depending on placement and buildings locations. Gives me choice of where to tuck LoC. I'd rather have the roll to move terrain than the roll to place it.

[deadtorius]

Happens to me a lot and with only one road available it restricts where I can deploy since losing an LOC is much worse than a camp in the other FOG rules ever was.

[hazelbark]

Happens to me a lot and with only one road available it restricts where I can deploy since losing an LOC is much worse than a camp in the other FOG rules ever was.

I think it has the historical impact of compelling a withdrawal or face catastrophe. It helps shape a pick up game into more of a historical feel. The wrinkle is there ought to be a way for the defender to withdraw before its lost after X number of turns. In the period it was easier to disengage if you have cavalry especially than say in the ancient period.