The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[Cunningcairn]

Classical is missing 105BC Romans

Thanks. (stockwellpete)

So the Roman 105BC is not moving to Later Antiquity?

Pete said that he is keeping Late Antiquity to 0-599 AD?

Mike I've read the posts now and see it is staying in Classical Antiquity.

[stockwellpete]

No feedback so far. Is there some interest out there for this next Themed Event? The other way I could organise this in respect of choosing armies is to discard the "BC" and "AD" separation and say that players can choose 2 armies from the entire list. This would make it less historical, but it would increase the range of choices at the group stage. Any preferences?

[MikeMarchant]

Does anyone know of a quick way to look at which units are available in a particular army list?

To have to load a battle just to see which untis are available is impractical when trying to examine lots of different lists.


Best Wishes

Mike

[rbodleyscott]

Does anyone know of a quick way to look at which units are available in a particular army list?

To have to load a battle just to see which untis are available is impractical when trying to examine lots of different lists.


Best Wishes

Mike

There are army list preview buttons in the Custom Battles setup screen.

[MikeMarchant]

Thanks, Richard, I'll take a look.

Yes, that's done the trick. Many thanks.


Best Wishes

Mike

[GeneralKostas]

Good morning,

How many points do we have for the Classical and Late Antiquity armies?

[stockwellpete]

Good morning,

How many points do we have for the Classical and Late Antiquity armies?

1200.

[MikeMarchant]

Pete, if I specifiy an ally for the army I select, am I obligated to use allied units in every battle I fight with them, or can I sometimes select units from that ally and sometimes not?


Best Wishes

Mike

[stockwellpete]

Pete, if I specifiy an ally for the army I select, am I obligated to use allied units in every battle I fight with them, or can I sometimes select units from that ally and sometimes not?


Best Wishes

Mike

I don't play the game now so I am not sure what the answer is. Richard will know for sure, but I think you may be able to pick an army without any allied units if you wish to.

[MikeMarchant]

Pete, if I specifiy an ally for the army I select, am I obligated to use allied units in every battle I fight with them, or can I sometimes select units from that ally and sometimes not?


Best Wishes

Mike

I don't play the game now so I am not sure what the answer is. Richard will know for sure, but I think you may be able to pick an army without any allied units if you wish to.

Thanks, Pete, I think that's answered the question, since I was concerned about what was permissible under the rules, rather than what was possible in the game.


Best Wishes

Mike

[rbodleyscott]

Pete, if I specifiy an ally for the army I select, am I obligated to use allied units in every battle I fight with them, or can I sometimes select units from that ally and sometimes not?


Best Wishes

Mike

There are likely to be some compulsory units. Also, your main army maxima are reduced.

What you cannot do, I think, according to the tournament rules, is sometimes specify your army with the ally in your challenges and sometimes without. If only because that would mean that your opponent would not know how to set up the challenge if he was setting it up.

Therefore, if you specified an ally when you chose your 4 army options, you cannot avoid having those compulsory units and having the maxima of your main army list reduced.

[MikeMarchant]

Pete, if I specifiy an ally for the army I select, am I obligated to use allied units in every battle I fight with them, or can I sometimes select units from that ally and sometimes not?


Best Wishes

Mike

There are likely to be some compulsory units. Also, your main army maxima are reduced.

What you cannot do, I think, according to the tournament rules, is sometimes specify your army with the ally in your challenges and sometimes without. If only because that would mean that your opponent would not know how to set up the challenge if he was setting it up.

Therefore, if you specified an ally when you chose your 4 army options, you cannot avoid having those compulsory units and having the maxima of your main army list reduced.

I see. Thanks for the clarification, Richard.


Best Wishes

Mike

[General Shapur]

The main issue which continues to make this a circular argument is that you link a lowering of RNG to increasing the quality of the game as objective truth when it is not.

No, it is a subjective truth. In my opinion the game would be improved by a tweaking of some of the rules (double-drops and rallies for starters, automatic cohesion drops for infantry flank attacks for laters) and the RNG. I feel that I contribute enough to the game through beta-testing, scenario-designing and tournament-running to be entitled to periodically raise these issue, or in this particular sequence to support other players who feel similarly.

Btw 1600pt matches do not seem to take that much longer than 1200pt ones to complete according to the match completion rates of the Biblical section over the past 2 seasons. The argument is that with slightly bigger armies the effect of a calamitous double-drop early on in the battle can be more easily mitigated. I think this argument is probably correct.

I think the larger armies remove a lot of the spikes in luck. The trade-off is an occasional 'beige' game that needs a bit more work to turn a flank or get a breakthru. But it suits what I prefer to play.

[stockwellpete]

With regards to the debate that is going on about the FOG2DL in the main forum here . . .

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=94560

I would just like to make it absolutely clear that all players are entitled to conduct their battles in any way they feel is appropriate for their army and the terrain that has been allocated to them. Defensive tactics, including the building of ambushes, are a legitimate way of approaching the game in the FOG2DL. The rules also provide a mechanism for restarting games within the first 3 turns should both players agree that the terrain is likely to lead to a drawn outcome.

[paulmcneil]

With regards to the debate that is going on about the FOG2DL in the main forum here . . .

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=94560

I would just like to make it absolutely clear that all players are entitled to conduct their battles in any way they feel is appropriate for their army and the terrain that has been allocated to them. Defensive tactics, including the building of ambushes, are a legitimate way of approaching the game in the FOG2DL. The rules also provide a mechanism for restarting games within the first 3 turns should both players agree that the terrain is likely to lead to a drawn outcome.

absolutely agree, the whining going on about a good defensive set up was pathetic

[devoncop]

With regards to the debate that is going on about the FOG2DL in the main forum here . . .

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=94560

I would just like to make it absolutely clear that all players are entitled to conduct their battles in any way they feel is appropriate for their army and the terrain that has been allocated to them. Defensive tactics, including the building of ambushes, are a legitimate way of approaching the game in the FOG2DL. The rules also provide a mechanism for restarting games within the first 3 turns should both players agree that the terrain is likely to lead to a drawn outcome.

absolutely agree, the whining going on about a good defensive set up was pathetic

+100

[Geffalrus]

"Pikes outward men, we seem to be slightly surrounded........"

Screen_00000031.jpg (540.73 KiB) Viewed 119 times

[MikeMarchant]

"Pikes outward men, we seem to be slightly surrounded........"
Screen_00000031.jpg

To misquote a well known half-Amercian, half-Englishman:

We shall fight them with peaches, we shall fight them with pikes, we shall fight in the fields and in the trees, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.


Best Wishes

Mike