Thoughts and questions after latest game

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

Post Reply
hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Thoughts and questions after latest game

Post by hammy » Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:48 am

Alan and I played another game last night. Yet again I too advantage of my sneak previews of the lists to field a Swiss army against Alans Crusaders. Essentially my Pk charged where Alan's camp was and hacked their way through various stuff along the way generating enough losses for Alan to give a decisive win to the Swiss. Alan was close to overwhelming my skirmishers holding my flank and relatively close to my camp at the end of the game.

Questions arising:

LF in terrain can not be seen from beyond a certain distance. Is this done on a base by base or BG by BG basis. i.e. if there is a bit of a base outside the terrain can the whole BG be seen?

Does a generals base maintain BL integrity? i.e. can you have two BG's in corner to corner contact with a general acting as a 'fillet'?

If you have an odd shaped BL (a bit like a squared z) how does this group move? Does it's frontage count as the total width of the BL? if it contracts can it end up as an L shaped BL? This is difficult to describe but consider a 3 wide BG with another one behind it but then shift the rear BG two bases to one side then contract the BL what happens?

If a BG is removed due to losing too many bases what happens to an attached general?

If a broken BG is charged does it rout again or just stand there? We had a situation where a BG of HF broke from another BG of HF, the first rout the pusuers stayed in contact, on the interbound the router made a 3 MU gap. Can the pursuers charge the routers in their next bound before the routers get to move again? If they can it certainly feels wrong.

Expanding and shuffling bases in melee... We had a few situations where a pike BG had two files of 4 and one of 3 bases. Can the pike shuffle to maximise their advantage? If so does the BG they are fighting get to expand after the Pk shuffle? We had one where a column was charged by a 3 wide BG of PK with one flank file 3 bases deep and the other 4. Can the column choose to expand to the 3 rank side after the pike have set their stall? We may have missed a trick here as I don't think the non bounding player can expand in melee if the bounding player doesn't.

Do disrupted shock troops have to test to not charge when they are in charge reach? We coudn't find anything to say they didn't.

One of my pike BG's broke a spear BG that was in line with another spear BG. The routers went only 1 MU, the pike obviously kept in touch and the routers were removed on bases lost. In Alan's next bound the spear BG to the flank of my pike wheeled 1 degree and charged me in the flank... Then in the melee phase he turned to face and expanded, all in all while we couldn't find anything wrong rules wise it felt a touch odd. If my pike had not pursued they would have been safe, if I had pursued 3MU or more he wouldn't have been able to wheel and hit me. All rather odd.


Some general comments:

I got quite excited when my pike got within charge reach of Alan's knights but then I worked out the POA's :( If Pike are charged by knightly lancers the combat is ++ to the pike, if the pike charge the lancers the combat is even!! Is this intended? In the end I had no choice but to risk it and one of my Pike BG's cut it's way through a BG of knights but it was purely on the dice.

Should a BG be able to move if it is attempting to recover from loss of cohesion? Not sure about this but the situation where a general joins a BG, rallies it from broken (presumably telling them 'dont worry lads') then tells them to run like hell over here it just feels a bit odd.

Heavy weapon foot feel to me to be well... totally pants. I can't find anything they are good at and for the cost. I suspect I will not be bothering with them much in future.

Hammy

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4181
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Post by terrys » Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:35 pm

LF in terrain can not be seen from beyond a certain distance. Is this done on a base by base or BG by BG basis. i.e. if there is a bit of a base outside the terrain can the whole BG be seen?
We'll have to add this to the things to consider list. My preference would be that if you can see one base, you can see the whole BG. It makes it simpler that way.

Does a generals base maintain BL integrity? i.e. can you have two BG's in corner to corner contact with a general acting as a 'fillet'?
No!
If you have an odd shaped BL (a bit like a squared z) how does this group move? Does it's frontage count as the total width of the BL? if it contracts can it end up as an L shaped BL? This is difficult to describe but consider a 3 wide BG with another one behind it but then shift the rear BG two bases to one side then contract the BL what happens?
The following are extraction form the latest rules.....
??? Other than as necessary to represent adverse Cohesion states, or due to fighting in multiple directions, battle groups must normally have all their bases in contact and facing the same direction, with rear rank bases lined up directly behind front rank bases.

REFORMING
If, as a consequence of previous events (other than forming Orb or depicting adverse Cohesion states), a battle group??™s bases are not all facing the same way and each in full edge contact with another base of the battle group, it can reform in either side??™s next Movement phase. It must do so if it moves. It reforms facing the direction previously faced by some of the bases, with the same frontage as the current widest frontage in that direction, with all but the last rank equal. It can move normally.
This means that, unless you place your bases in such a formation at the start, you can't ever get into such a formtaion later. Maybe we should have a general rules defining the permitted formation as per the last sentance of the above quote.
If a BG is removed due to losing too many bases what happens to an attached general?
He end up on his own, and evades if necessary.
If a broken BG is charged does it rout again or just stand there? We had a situation where a BG of HF broke from another BG of HF, the first rout the pusuers stayed in contact, on the interbound the router made a 3 MU gap. Can the pursuers charge the routers in their next bound before the routers get to move again? If they can it certainly feels wrong.
You have to consider that routed troops are 'Fragmented' when charged, and so have to take an immediate cohesion test. (which they automatically fail) They will therefore make another flee move.
Something we'll have to add as a seperate entry to make it clear.

Can the column choose to expand to the 3 rank side after the pike have set their stall? We may have missed a trick here as I don't think the non bounding player can expand in melee if the bounding player doesn't.
The rules state: "EXPANDING OR CONTRACTING WHEN IN COMBAT
A battle group in combat can expand its frontage in order to get extra bases fighting. This does not require a CMT.
??? The player whose bound it is can expand his battle group by 1 base frontage on one side only.
??? The other player can match this expansion, or expand by 1 base frontage to match an existing overlap, if there is room to do so. He cannot expand unless the enemy expanded or already had an overlap."

Does this answer your question?
Do disrupted shock troops have to test to not charge when they are in charge reach? We coudn't find anything to say they didn't.
Disrupted shock troops are as likely to charge as non-disrupted.
. In Alan's next bound the spear BG to the flank of my pike wheeled 1 degree and charged me in the flank...
I'm trying to think of a reason why he can't do this... I can only contend that he may be making an illegal contact, in that unless he actually moves forwards he can't make an impact move. Rules state the following:

???A charging battle group must make a charge move in one of two ways:
?????? Wheel and advance to touch the target battle group(s).
??? Advance directly ahead, up to the full extent of the charge move (plus any variable move distance to contact evaders (- VMD ??“ - See P.17216), intending to touch any part of the target battle group(s).
??? Combine such an advance with a singleup to two wheels made at any stage during the charge move.

The base making the wheel is not 'advancing', therefore can't 'touch' his opponent.
This is all a bit tenous, so I guess we'll have to look at that situation and find a better resolution.

If Pike are charged by knightly lancers the combat is ++ to the pike, if the pike charge the lancers the combat is even!! Is this intended? In the end I had no choice but to risk it and one of my Pike BG's cut it's way through a BG of knights but it was purely on the dice.
It is intended (at the moment). The alternative is to wait until the knights fail their CMT.
Should a BG be able to move if it is attempting to recover from loss of cohesion? Not sure about this but the situation where a general joins a BG, rallies it from broken (presumably telling them 'dont worry lads') then tells them to run like hell over here it just feels a bit odd.
Since the recovery is made in the inter-bound phase, you're not actually moving and recovering at the same time. There's no reason why a general can't rally his troops while they're still moving. In fact. when rallying a broken BG it has to be moving.
Heavy weapon foot feel to me to be well... totally pants. I can't find anything they are good at and for the cost. I suspect I will not be bothering with them much in future.
You opinion is most welcome. They may well be pants, and they may be too expensive. We may have to adjust as necessary.
What did you use them against? (and were they medium or heavy?)

hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:20 pm

terrys wrote:
Can the column choose to expand to the 3 rank side after the pike have set their stall? We may have missed a trick here as I don't think the non bounding player can expand in melee if the bounding player doesn't.
The rules state: "EXPANDING OR CONTRACTING WHEN IN COMBAT
A battle group in combat can expand its frontage in order to get extra bases fighting. This does not require a CMT.
??? The player whose bound it is can expand his battle group by 1 base frontage on one side only.
??? The other player can match this expansion, or expand by 1 base frontage to match an existing overlap, if there is room to do so. He cannot expand unless the enemy expanded or already had an overlap."

Does this answer your question?
Yes but it does mean that in this situation the pike will not be able to prevent the knights from fighting the weakened file of pike when they expand. The pike were 4,4,3 ranks deep with 2 knights in a column fighting the central file of pike. As the Knights get to expand last the pike can't react.
terrys wrote:
Heavy weapon foot feel to me to be well... totally pants. I can't find anything they are good at and for the cost. I suspect I will not be bothering with them much in future.
You opinion is most welcome. They may well be pants, and they may be too expensive. We may have to adjust as necessary.
What did you use them against? (and were they medium or heavy?)
Most of the heavy weapon troops I have used so far have been protected heavy foot. The only thing they seemed even vaguely good against (and it was a struggle) was a BG of unprotected bowmen in broken ground. In this fight heavy weapon actually gave me a + at impact and other than that nothing.

I have had heavy weapon foot fighting heavy armoured knights where they are on - at impact and 0 in melee. I had a wild plan that I could charge kinghts with pike then bring the heavy weapons up in the melee phase to chop them up but that is a pretty scary tactic for the pike.

Overall I would rather my heavy weapons were swordsmen and I certainly think that armoured swordsmen are better than protected heavy weapons.

I did consider using some dismounted knights but heavy armoured foot with heavy weapon are so expensive that I really couldn't justify including them in my army. Perhaps next time I will try them and see if they are any good.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22056
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott » Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:25 pm

Hammy wrote:Heavy weapon foot feel to me to be well... totally pants. I can't find anything they are good at and for the cost. I suspect I will not be bothering with them much in future.
Well they are pants compared with Swiss pikes, even the Swiss thought so, and changed to pikes! There would be something wrong with the rules if a Swiss army preferred to field HW rather than pikes. They are not so pants if your army list does not have pikes.

We are, I think, going to allow their POA to count even against steady Pk/Sp in the impact phase - mainly to stop the mexican stand-offs previously commented on vs defensive spears, but also it will make them less pants.

(If indeed they are "pants")

Note that in the army lists most pikes are Protected, whereas most medieval HW are armoured or heavily armoured. Thus they will tend to have an armour + POA vs pikes in melee phase. This puts them on equal POAs to 4 ranks deep pikes in the melee phase, and if the pikes are disrupted or lose some 4th rank bases, it is pretty much all over for the pikes. 2 ranks deep armoured HW foot are cheaper per base frontage than 4 ranks deep protected pikes.

hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy » Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:19 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:Well they are pants compared with Swiss pikes, even the Swiss thought so, and changed to pikes! There would be something wrong with the rules if a Swiss army preferred to field HW rather than pikes. They are not so pants if your army list does not have pikes.
I don't expect heavy weapon foot to be better than pike, I just expect them to be good at something. As it stands they seem to me to be below average at pretty much everything and not to have a role in an army unless your opponent has dismounted men at arms or your heavy weapons are protected and he has lots of armoured lights spearmen.
rbodleyscott wrote: We are, I think, going to allow their POA to count even against steady Pk/Sp in the impact phase - mainly to stop the mexican stand-offs previously commented on vs defensive spears, but also it will make them less pants.
That will help quite a bit as they won't then be disadvantaged against spear in the impact phase and will only be - against pike rather than the -- they have at present.

rbodleyscott wrote: Note that in the army lists most pikes are Protected, whereas most medieval HW are armoured or heavily armoured. Thus they will tend to have an armour + POA vs pikes in melee phase. This puts them on equal POAs to 4 ranks deep pikes in the melee phase, and if the pikes are disrupted or lose some 4th rank bases, it is pretty much all over for the pikes. 2 ranks deep armoured HW foot are cheaper per base frontage than 4 ranks deep protected pikes.
True but the heavy weapon foot have to pay for their armour and then pay more than any other foot weapon to get less advantages than offensive spearmen.

Compare offensive spear and heavy weapons

Impact phase - at present the HW are worse as they don't get a + against sp, pk and non shock mounted, assuming they are changed to get a + against all foot then this is close but spear are still better

Melee phase - spear get a +unless fragmented, HW get a + except against skilled sword and skirmishers, Ok, the HW do ignore armour disadvantages so that is possibly slightly in favour of the heavy weapon.

Heavy weapons cost 3, offensive spear cost 2....

It doesn't IMO add up.

Hammy

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”