MOVEMENT

[terrys]

MOVEMENT
Changes to the movement rules as follows:

1) Heavy Foot move 4MU in the open

2) Pikes cannot move if they expand or turn 90deg.

3a) Light Foot cannot double move..
3b) Light Horse cannot double move unless they are led by a commander depicted as light horse, or are part of a battle line and commander is leading a mounted BG of non-skirmishers - or during the first move that they arrive on-table from a flank march.

4) BGs with lancers capability aren't shock troops if, at start of game, either:
a) ALL of their bases also have Bow*
or b) Half of their bases have Bow or xbow.
i.e. - They don't have to test to not charge during the impact phase.
NB. They cannot evade if in single rank.

5) It takes a complete move to place Portable Obstacles. They must be placed within the 1st 3 turns of a game, and cannot be moved after placement.

[philqw78]

Think you mean battle line for lh double move above

[philqw78]

So if polish knights are charged by impact foot the foot get a plus because the polish are not shock because they have a rank of xbow.

[terrys]

Think you mean battle line for lh double move above

Updated.

So if polish knights are charged by impact foot the foot get a plus because the polish are not shock because they have a rank of xbow.

Yes - But the knights also get a plus because the spear aren't stationary.

[RobKhan]

The LH double move restricts the LH to the speed of the slower mounted battle troops to which they must be "battlelined" with. Yet another cut to add to the death of the Mongols and their ilk. It also forces armies such as Mongols to form battlegroups with the CAV to get up some speed thus limiting the players' options in a truly big way. Flanking an enemy must include the CAV in a battleline - deployments will be very predictable - no fun. If the LH BG's are alone on a flank enemy HF double at 8 while the LH can only do 7 - ridiculous!

What does "depicted as LH "mean? Will there be a new type of TC FC and IC for armies such as Mongol with characteristics according to being LC or CAV or whatever, or do I just have to make some command models with 2 figures instead of 3? Was Subodai a LH or Cav commander?

And for other armies LF can only move 5 while HF double at 8????? LF is the new HF.

Unhappy,
Robkhan.

[dave_r]

So if polish knights are charged by impact foot the foot get a plus because the polish are not shock because they have a rank of xbow.

Just because they aren't shock that doesn't mean they don't count their lance. So if HF it would be evens.

[dave_r]

The LH double move restricts the LH to the speed of the slower mounted battle troops to which they must be "battlelined" with. Yet another cut to add to the death of the Mongols and their ilk. It also forces armies such as Mongols to form battlegroups with the CAV to get up some speed thus limiting the players' options in a truly big way. Flanking an enemy must include the CAV in a battleline - deployments will be very predictable - no fun. If the LH BG's are alone on a flank enemy HF double at 8 while the LH can only do 7 - ridiculous!

What does "depicted as LH "mean? Will there be a new type of TC FC and IC for armies such as Mongol with characteristics according to being LC or CAV or whatever, or do I just have to make some command models with 2 figures instead of 3? Was Subodai a LH or Cav commander?

And for other armies LF can only move 5 while HF double at 8????? LF is the new HF.

Unhappy,
Robkhan.

Take the Mongol as cavalry!

Each army states what the general can be depicted as. Some of these may change.

Be good to have a test game with Skythian or parthian to see how they go. You could then report back.

[terrys]

What does "depicted as LH "mean? Will there be a new type of TC FC and IC for armies such as Mongol with characteristics according to being LC or CAV or whatever, or do I just have to make some command models with 2 figures instead of 3? Was Subodai a LH or Cav commander?

All armies have an entry stating "commanders should be depicted as .........".
However, most players total ignore this entry - since all commanders get to move at the speed of Light Horse.
We have the opportunity to use this statement to add some variation to the choice of commanders - but we are still working on that.

Meanwhile -
There are quite a few armies that already allow you to depict commanders as LH. However, most Mongol armies don't permit that option.
They must usually be depicted as Guard or Elite cavalry.
As part of V3 we will be supplying updates for the army list books, and the depiction of commanders is one of the areas we will look at.
It is likely that we will add an entry for Mongol and similar armies that permit Sub-commanders to be fielded as light horse.

As for LF/HF, the changes force you to use LF historically. They should be used to protect the front of your army from enemy skirmishers. Deploying them in advance of your line does this, and double moving your HF 8MU isn't likely to happen past the first move or two.
The main issue with double moving LF is that to do so a commander must be leading them - and that would never happen in a 'real' battle.

[terrys]

And for other armies LF can only move 5 while HF double at 8????? LF is the new HF.

Skirmishers can now deploy 18" in - which compensates for the lack of a double move. (which rarely happens after the first move anyway).

[RobKhan]

Hi All,
Are you considering having different Commander movement according to the troop type of commander? For example LHCom 7, Cav Com 5, Knight Com and HF Com 4 and so on...?

Dave - I have this weird idea that the game is based on history, so taking all Cav is not my thing where having discreet troop types of Cav and LH is the nearest description of Mongols, and their ilk, you have at the moment, without buying into the idea of changing from openorder to closed order and back again. Despite the rules description Cav do not perform as LH.

Terry - LF was also used to attack an enemy line and to "see over the hill". Without fatigue rules, to have HF doubling faster than LF is silly. If you use the LF to screen the HF, you have the theoretical situation of the LF slowing the HF line.

Cheers
Rob

[terrys]

Terry - LF was also used to attack an enemy line and to "see over the hill". Without fatigue rules, to have HF doubling faster than LF is silly. If you use the LF to screen the HF, you have the theoretical situation of the LF slowing the HF line.

Rob,

Given that LF now start 6" from the centre line, they can still perform their function regardless of what the HF will do.
Sure HF can double move 8MU - but likely only to do it once. After the first move they'll be 4" from the centre line (LF would be 1" from the centre line) - which is where the enemy are likely to be as well - so a 2nd attempt at a double move with HF is very unlikely - other than on a flank that the enemy has chosen not to dispute.

I have this weird idea that the game is based on history, so taking all Cav is not my thing where having discreet troop types of Cav and LH is the nearest description of Mongols, and their ilk, you have at the moment, without buying into the idea of changing from open order to closed order and back again. Despite the rules description Cav do not perform as LH.

Cavalry either in 1 or 2 ranks is a much better portrayal of Mongols than LH. They tended to use allies to do the skirmishing work, preferring to use their own much better quality cavalry for the dirty work. Given that you will be able to have LH commanders in the Mongol army I don't see what your problem is.

Are you considering having different Commander movement according to the troop type of commander? For example LHCom 7, Cav Com 5, Knight Com and HF Com 4 and so on...?

It is something that we have considered, but has not been popular so far - mainly because it would likely mean that players would have to paint up a greater number of different commander stands.

[dave_r]

Dave - I have this weird idea that the game is based on history, so taking all Cav is not my thing where having discreet troop types of Cav and LH is the nearest description of Mongols, and their ilk, you have at the moment, without buying into the idea of changing from openorder to closed order and back again. Despite the rules description Cav do not perform as LH.

There is very little evidence for tactical level skirmishing from some of the perceived skirmish armies. For example Skythians would be much better represented as Cavalry. Unfortunately, the army lists make it much more beneficial to be skirmishers. Same with the Mongols.

I think the Skythians should be either Average or Superior, Undrilled, Unprotected, Cavalry. I tried the Mongols out at the weekend (admittedly in v2) using 9 BG's of Unprotected Drilled Cavalry Bow Sword. Worked very well. Covered the entire table and shot the enemy up where I could and used the manoever to bunch up where I thought I was going to win.

Being Cavalry meant I could stand to receive the charge without the compulsory evade. It made a big difference.

[philqw78]

Meant I could catch you.

Mongol v Mongol less than 2 hours for a 16 to 9.
If they were both LH max it would have been an awfully slow game. If either of us had LH max it would have been faster and the LH version slaughtered. We both had 10 BG of fighty troops and 4 skirmishers. But my master stroke was a BG of Hvy Arrty

Prior to that I broke a lancer cav/ spear HF army. Dave beat something else obviously not nearly as hard

[philqw78]

Skirmishers can now deploy 18" in - which compensates for the lack of a double move. (which rarely happens after the first move anyway).

Can't you make deployment proportional to table depth. 1/4 of depth for battle troops, 3/8 for skirmishers?

[terrys]

Can't you make deployment proportional to table depth. 1/4 of depth for battle troops, 3/8 for skirmishers?

I presume you mean total table width rather than your own half ....
It may be easier to use 1/2 and 3/4 of your own half.
Your idea is sound though - it would automatically compensate for different scales and table sizes

[philqw78]

The maths is the same, 3/4 of half is 3/8. It gives 18/48 and 15/40 for skirmishers

[hazelbark]

All armies have an entry stating "commanders should be depicted as .........".
However, most players total ignore this entry - since all commanders get to move at the speed of Light Horse.
We have the opportunity to use this statement to add some variation to the choice of commanders - but we are still working on that.

Well in V1 there was NO game difference in how a commander was depicted IIRC. In v2 it only matter for Elephant generals.

In general I like the idea of more commander variety, if there is a point.
Does depicting a commander as a Light horse prevent them from effecting CV or KN or Foot?
IS there a cost difference?
If you are not going to have interesting and valuable variety which create sensible choices. It would be simpler to say generals can't do X for light troops unless army list notes allow.
This needs some fleshing out to be good chrome and not cruddy aluminum siding.

[philqw78]

Aluminium

[berthier]

3b) Light Horse cannot double move unless they are led by a commander depicted as light horse...

This seems to be an over complication that is really not needed. As generals by themselves have no explicit combat factor, why add this? This ensures more lists have to be errata-ed to address the issue that LH generals were not allowed to begin with (Mongols come to mind and possibly Huns, Skythians, Numidians and Parthians as well).

Keep the second part of this proposal saying they have to move as part of a battle-line with battle troops and be done with it.

[RobKhan]

Hi All,
Is it intended to slow down a battle line of HF or MF, with LF as part of a battle line, by not allowing the double move because of the LF?

Berthier - Do you mean that the only way for LH to double move is when it is "battle lined" with non-skirmishers?

Cheers
Rob