to tell or not to tell

[papsterdino]

In dementia land myself and grandad were discussing allies I was deploying Lf that were Libyan allied Lf from my Carthaginian ally and did not tell him so, there were 2 reasons for this. (1) I was trying to be crafty (2) there are Libyan Lf in my list and so I considered if I told him they were Libyans I would not also have to tell him they were allied troops. Have I been dishonest or crafty cheers all.?

[ravenflight]

In dementia land myself and grandad were discussing allies I was deploying Lf that were Libyan allied Lf from my Carthaginian ally and did not tell him so, there were 2 reasons for this. (1) I was trying to be crafty (2) there are Libyan Lf in my list and so I considered if I told him they were Libyans I would not also have to tell him they were allied troops. Have I been dishonest or crafty cheers all.?

I think you have to tell your opponent what the troops are:

LF, Unprotected, Undrilled, Average, Javelin, Light Spear

I don't think you have to tell him thatthey are Lybian, however I feel that they MUST be accurately depicted (however people sub in units all the time, so in that case I'd think you should define them further).

If he was to ask, you'd probably have to say they are Lybian. Are they allies? I can have them as allies, and I can have them as 'in list'

That's about it.

AFTER deployment of generals, I would say that it would be wise to inform him of your command structure, just so he can be assured you're not cheating.

[titanu]

P155 says that the troops must be FULLY defined and I would suggest that this include if they are allies or not.

[petedalby]

P155 says that the troops must be FULLY defined and I would suggest that this include if they are allies or not.

Totally agree. Concealing their allied status, even at deployment, is inappropriate.

[davidandlynda]

I always make sure my opponent knows which of the Irish kerns or galloglass are allies as I put them down,
David

[bbotus]

I like to make a copy of the FoG Army List Generator Excel spreadsheet for my army and give it to the opponent. I even mark the troops that are impetuous. During the game I'll tell him which unit is which whenever he asks.

[MikeHorah]

Well whatever the literal or acceptable interpretation of rules I would consider it a courtesy in all my games, all of which are
" friendlies" to point out such information at the start ( helps me to remember it too ). But if my regular opponent subsequently forgets something to his disadavantage and omits to re-check it with me I do not feel obliged constantly to remind him

I have a regular opponent for FOG(AM ) who has a copies of only a few of the list booklets so I try to improve his game from time to time by pointing out wrinkles or points from this forum , which he does not read, also the rules which he does not read much either or interpretations and learning points from Terry ( we play games from time to time) and the nuances of a list he may not be familiar with . All to make the whole thing more challenging and games more on a level playing field.

But then I have ever been one who prefers to lose because my plan etc was rubbish or my opponents more sound or win because my manoeuvres more brilliant - either rather than win as a result of the mastery of minor gamey mechanisms and minutiae But I'm just a weird old geezer - hopefully not in the mold of " granddad".

[mungocallow]

You should always tell your opponent what your troops are at deployment.
I don't tend to use allies much but on the few occasions i have i always let my opponent know they were allied troops.

Think of this, if you were in your opponents shoes and you suddenly found out during the game that some troops were allies and not from main army how would you feel. Most people i think would then think that their opponent was not being honest and the atmosphere of the game might change.

Just my thoughts, but i personally like to feel i have been honest and have played with a straight bat.

[ravenflight]

You should always tell your opponent what your troops are at deployment.
I don't tend to use allies much but on the few occasions i have i always let my opponent know they were allied troops.

Think of this, if you were in your opponents shoes and you suddenly found out during the game that some troops were allies and not from main army how would you feel. Most people i think would then think that their opponent was not being honest and the atmosphere of the game might change.

Just my thoughts, but i personally like to feel i have been honest and have played with a straight bat.

Well, I think of it slightly different.

How would the opposing general KNOW that those Lybians are allies, but the others are not?

National dress etc may tell you they are Lybians, intelligence (reading the list books) may tell you that they are possibly allies or possibly integeral, but until an allied commander does something with them, how would you know?

Generally, I say things like 'these are x type troops, and if you read the list that this army came from you would be able to tell blah blah

Naturally, the general would have to be 'as depicted' so you would have to express him as a Lybian allied general, and your opponent would be able to guess your OrBat from that information, but there is nothing in my reading of the rules that make such a declaration mandatory.

Generally, I would tell anyway, but that isn't what the OP asked. If I WANTED to keep it secret, for some nefarious reason, I don't see a problem with it.

Only thing I'd say... similar to outflanks, ambushes and other sneaky things... best be correct with EVERYTHING you do. If you maneouver with the wrong general, you've just cheated.

[AlanCutner]

How would the opposing general KNOW that those Lybians are allies, but the others are not?

National dress etc may tell you they are Lybians, intelligence (reading the list books) may tell you that they are possibly allies or possibly integeral, but until an allied commander does something with them, how would you know?

I would contend that opposing commanders would know very well what the make up of the opposing army was. There was generally a lot of interchange between troops of opposing armies. And not just the troops - civilians of various kinds would move between the armies. It is extremely unlikely that a general would not know exactly who he faced, possibly even down to which villages they came from. And the 'who' he faced would include knowledge of which commanders he opposed - people talk and bitch about their commanders/managers/supervisors in whatever profession they're in.

[grahambriggs]

Well, I think of it slightly different.

How would the opposing general KNOW that those Lybians are allies, but the others are not?

I imagine both are allies, one a smaller tribe so it's king takes orders from a subordinate tribe and one a bigger one - perhaps the Libu who have brought more numbers and take orders from the Carthaginian commander. You might not be able to tell one libyan from another, but you'd know that the king of the Libu was against you.

But in the game, the rules say you have to fully disclose as you deploy, so you need to say you are allied. You mioght as well ask how the enemy general knows that your men are wearing armour under their silks. He might not, but the rules say to tell him they are armoured anyway.

[ravenflight]

But in the game, the rules say you have to fully disclose as you deploy, so you need to say you are allied. You mioght as well ask how the enemy general knows that your men are wearing armour under their silks. He might not, but the rules say to tell him they are armoured anyway.

And I think that is the rub. We disagree on what 'fully disclose' means. I can certainly see where you're coming from, but don't agree with it.

Fully disclose, to me, is:

Light Foot, Unprotected, Undrilled, Average, Javelin, Light Spear.

The fact that they are allied or not, isn't a part (IMHO) of this disclosure.

As I said, I generally would do so, but mostly because I don't rely on nefarious plans.

[petedalby]

Fortunately most players, in my experience, interpret 'fully' to mean 'completely' - and that includes describing whether a BG is allied or not.

The rules are written to try to ensure there are no 'Gotchas!' in terms of pulling a stroke on an opponent by concealing information in this way.

I think Mungocallow is spot on with:

Think of this, if you were in your opponents shoes and you suddenly found out during the game that some troops were allies and not from main army how would you feel. Most people i think would then think that their opponent was not being honest and the atmosphere of the game might change.

Being open and honest is always the best policy. Why do anything else - it's just a game of toy soldiers.

[MikeHorah]

[quote="petedalby


Being open and honest is always the best policy. Why do anything else - it's just a game of toy soldiers.[/quote]

Well quite. It is meant to be fun after all.

In games where there are no umpires true surprise is hard to achieve . I am not even sure if the withholding of this particular piece of information would be that disadvantageous so it is hardly worth taking offence at the discourtesy. The ancients made a good deal of use of stratagems however - hiding troops behind others in plain sight by varying their usual deployment footprint - Pompey in Spain, Caesar at Pharsalus.

In FOG(AM) even the " surprise " of a flank march is diluted once you start to roll the dice for its arrival and no-one suggests you roll dice to " pretend " you have a flank march .In games where there are no umpires true surprise is hard to achieve and the mechanisms available to simulate it are pretty limited . With an umpire one can " kriegspiel" it- if you have an umpire willing to consider stratagems "outside the box " of the rules .

I remember the very first game in a club that I ever took part in, where the guy opposite me charged onto the table with his cavalry. No provision in the rule system but I do not recall feeling offended. Going " off piste" can add to the fun provided you are open minded about it.

[ravenflight]

In dementia land myself and grandad were discussing allies I was deploying Lf that were Libyan allied Lf from my Carthaginian ally and did not tell him so, there were 2 reasons for this. (1) I was trying to be crafty (2) there are Libyan Lf in my list and so I considered if I told him they were Libyans I would not also have to tell him they were allied troops. Have I been dishonest or crafty cheers all.?

Well, there you have it.

The vast majority say you have to tell, the minority (me) say you don't (and even I state that it's probably good policy TO tell).

[IanP]

Just a couple of thoughts on this subject.

My feeling is that describing the troops as you deploy them is one thing, regardless of how "fully".
Once deployed, including generals, then I think might be the best time to go over which BG's belong to allies.
After all, it would be hard to keep track of if the allies weren't all deployed at the same time, unless they are very distinctive from the main list.

It also puts me in mind of games under a previous rule set.
That said that figures should be accurate depictions of the troops they represented, and if not they should be clearly described to the opponent (or something to that effect).
Some took this very literally, on a couple of occasions I enquired what a certain unit was to be told bluntly "they're as depicted".
I guess the lessen is just go with whatever makes things smoother for both players, I don't think its worth the stress otherwise, but I do miss the occasional harmless stratagem and surprise!

Ian.

[mungocallow]

Thanks Pete

like i say just my opinion but i just feel being completely honest and open always makes the game far friendlier and after all we are just pushing little toy soldiers around.

[RobKhan]

I must confess "fully disclose" is a very loosely used term - I bit like that one that goes something like "Thou shalt not Kill" - very vague and obviously has been eternally open to interpretation,depending on whose side you are on and what flavour of God/s you have signed up for(or not). "Stop" on that big red shield is also a mystery to me. I always stop at that sign, think about it for a while, and while engaged in deep philosophical analysis, have a look at the traffic before deciding to continue. ))

Robkhan

[grahambriggs]

Thanks Pete

like i say just my opinion but i just feel being completely honest and open always makes the game far friendlier and after all we are just pushing little toy soldiers around.

Agreed. It also protects the owner of the allies from trivial errors. I had a game last year where the opponent had an ally, he "fully disclosed" it and the the general as "TC, allied". As it happened, the ally had some combat troops and some skirmishers. The general went over to the latter in case they needed a Cohesion Test - they didn't. A move or two later, while he was wandering back to his battle troops he was sat with a unit in the main army (we were squaring up to fight with a bunch of units and generals).

I charged in with generals fighting. He declared his generals to be fighting. At which point I was able to remind him that the general shouldn't as he's the ally so can't influence the re-rolls. Had my opponent not been sensible and declared the allies at deployment i wouldn't have been able to spot the error.