Slitherine

I played my first V2 game with Rob Taylor (alias Robert241167).

I used Early Hungarians, Rob had Early Ottomans.

My list was:

FC, 3xTC
3x4 Kn (H/A, Ln/Sw, Sup)
3x4 Cv (Prot, Bw/Sw, Sup)
2x4 LH (UA, Bw/Sw, Ave)
2x4 LH (UA, Bw, Ave)
3x6 LF (UA, Bw, Poor)

Rob had a mix of Sup and Ave LH Bw/Sw (2 of each?), some Poor LF (6 Bw and 4 Firearm) and a mass of Sup Prot Cv, Bw/Sw. He had 3 generals, all FCs.

The first difference from V1 was in initiative. Rob won the roll and decided to take the initiative, which meant I got first pick of the terrain pieces and first move, he chose the terrain type (Agricultural) and got to place his bits first. The most sigificant feature was a steep hill about 18 inches in from my right flank and just on Rob's side of the centre line.

There's more to consider in deployment due to the restrictions on controlling battle lines. However, the extra 2 MU deployment for battle troops is handy and I decided to deploy 2 Cv and 2 LH interspersed with each other plus one BG of Kn on my Right (all at 12") with the LF in the centre (partly opposite the steep hill) with the other 2 Kn and Cv to their left amd the other LH on the far left. This enabled me to move 4 of the 5 BGs on my right with 2 TCs (leaving one of the LH making single moves) and my 2 other Kn and 1 Cv were controlled by the FC and the other TC took the remaining 2 LH. Rob deployed 1 LH and his LF opposite my LF, his 2 Sup LH at each end of the line and the rest was made up of his Cv, mostly in 1 rank. It turned out he had 2 Cv and 1 LH on a flank march, for which he rolled a 12 on turn 1!

During the game we encountered a number of the V2 changes. Principally these were:

1) Reduced range for Skirmishing Bow. This affected all our LF/LH bowmen plus Rob's Cv in a single rank. These troops have to take a greater risk to have any effect with their shooting which we agreed was a good change.
2) Protected Cv are definitely better. I used to use them in V1, but always in 1 rank. If I redesigned this list I would probably try to get a 4th BG of these into it. Cv in 2 ranks can move up to just over 3 MU from skirmishing Cv/LF and shoot them without reply.
3) Interpenetration. The rule that a BG can't interpenetrate another that has interpenetrated it in the current phase is good. We realised that putting LF in front of other troops who may want to evade is not clever...
4) Turn/Move changes. The most significant is the ability of skirmishing Cv to drop back does give extra options for them, but the reduced range offers some counter. The reduced move following a turn is significant but still allows Cv/LH to manouvre.
5) Restricted Areas. The ability to move straight back removes those cheesy pin options. Brilliant!

On the whole I think that the V2 changes have eliminated a number of the gripes that I had with the previous version, although it looks like taking Superior troops is still going to be the default option for mounted. But we knew the way to redress that was via points changes, for which we will have to wait.

Thanks Kev.

The evading LF that cannot then be passed through by the next evaders is a bit of a worry.

Hi guys

Just my two cents on our game:

I spent quite a while deciding whether I wanted initiative or not as I knew if I took initiative I would quickly get pinned against my table edge. I also didn't want to give initiative away and be sat in woodland.

I didn't optimise shooting throughout the game as I managed to get cavalry within charge range of knights a couple of times but not within shooting range.

My usual tactic of putting LF in front of cavalry won't work. When charged the LF would evade through the cavalry whilst the cavalry cannot then evade through the LF. LF will now need to be in front of solid battle troops which is good.

Interestingly shooty cavalry facing each other will be fun. Those deployed 2 ranks deep can move outside 3 MU's and get free shots on those deployed 1 deep.

I also got 1 BG of cavalry in trouble as the turn 90' and move 3 MU's meant it could still be pinned by knights in its next turn.

My only concern was skirmishers being able to move directly back outside the pinned zone making them even more slippery but this is countered by their reduced shooting ranges.

Rob

My usual tactic of putting LF in front of cavalry won't work. When charged the LF would evade through the cavalry whilst the cavalry cannot then evade through the LF.

Thinking about this some more I believe that this should be treated the same as any normal non-permitted interpenetration e.g. second BG bursts through the troops in their way and leaves them disrupted.It didn't come up, but I think the same applies to the other new rule in 8-13, "With the exception of Light Foot, no battle group can make any turns, expansions or contractions before or after passing through another battle group this phase." I think this would mean that any LH or Cv evaders who encounter LF will burst through them (and would themselves be burst through if the LF susequently evade through them in the same Impact Phase).

Thanks for this.

Not many AAR's for V2 posted, which may be indicative of how much take up of the electronic version there has been, so nice to hear what people are finding out. Roll on the printers...

>Thinking about this some more I believe that this should be treated the same as any normal non-permitted interpenetration e.g. second BG bursts through >the troops in their way and leaves them disrupted

Not sure about that, it creates a bit of a logical conundrum - it implies that what happened in the real world was like two turns of leapfrog, and the second line are allowed to leave it very late (after the OLF have passed through them) until deciding to evade, but still allowed to move as far as they would if they had made the decision immediately, and escape any form of penalty for being in this situation. That feels to me more like the second line saw the threat coming, evading in a normal, serene manner, and the LF who have plenty of room behind them to evade ito somehow inexpicably get disordered for no reason at all.

But I agree it seems wrong that the second line shouldn't be allowed to get out of the way at all - if I understand the description of what happened correctly.

Perhaps both BGs should be allowed to evade their normal distances, but are both disordered? Not sure of the exact real-life rationale for that, other than that each impedes the other by either physically getting entangled or blovking thier line of sight and making it harder for to react in a unified manner.

Did you find the game still flowed OK or did the new modifiers (no. of ranks affecting range, interpenetrations etc) make it more bitty and difficult to remember?

Also, with regard to the changes to bow skirmishers, is it still worth having them?

Thanks

Hi Eques

The game played well but obviously harder to remember all the new rules this early in.

I think bow skirmishers are still good but quality will be a factor for LH.

LF still get long range shots so will still continue to be a pain.

Rob

Thanks

Yes, as with any new set of rules there's a bit of delay due to checking things you're not sure of, but otherwise nothing occurred that greatly slowed the game down.

From this and other games that have been played at our club it seems that Superior LH may become more popular. LF may be more inclined to shoot from longer range in order to avoid being ridden down, but we're still only a few games in and so far people have been using more or less refined versions of wht they used previously. It will take more experience, and a few tournaments, before we really see what becomes popular.

Thanks Kev (and 2 cents Robert !) Despite reading the rules several times it appears i still miss the odd throwaway line in the rules- choice of initiative etc

Very interesting report and much appreciated. the changes look interesting and give much food for thought
regards
paul

kevinj wrote: LF may be more inclined to shoot from longer range in order to avoid being ridden down

I disagree with the LF at long range. It is too hard to get enough dice to matter. I think it is more likely that LF is more respectful of mounted and in particular LF need to operate near something that can protect it. So no longer just flinging LF out and knowing it will take like 4-6 turns for them to be chased down.

A good change imo.

Eques wrote:Also, with regard to the changes to bow skirmishers, is it still worth having them?

Thanks

Definitely!

I've been using LF bow skirmishers in v2 for over 3 months. What I like is that you now have to be very careful with them and use them in close cooperation with your battle line rather than an independent screen far removed from it. Similarly, LH come even more into their own by being the antedote to LF skirmish screens. So the cycle of (pear, scissors, rock) life (and death) continues....

You definitely have to make choices at different times whether to move up to 3MU and get the short range shots or just accept the long range shooting because the risk of being caught in an evade is too great. Are you feeling lucky, punk?

The LF range changes make bow armed LF more worth the extra cost cost compared to slingers since they can still add in shooting beyond 3 MU. It isn't likely to be effective massed shooting by itself can well provide a couple extra dice to combine with other shooters. Slingers either need to take the chance of closing to 3 MU or don't shoot. If anything Slingers are the losers with the range changes due to noticeable less effective shooting than bow LF and don't get the compensatory advantage in impact that LF javelinmen get.

Chris