A blog about all of the stuff I write on the backs of envelopes and never get round to finishing.......yet!
Saturday, 11 May 2019
Simplicity, time for some FAQs
"....and you Sir can FAQ off!"
Thank you all for your questions and comments, all very much appreciated! I have prepared a set of consolidated FAQs which you can find here. I'll revise the rules later this month, just in case anyone has further thoughts.
Great stuff. Thanks for the summary and collection of docs. I'm actually thinking the campaign system would work well for a wider scale 'Monmouth's Rebellion' style game.
(i) I allow units to make a 1 hex move directly to their rear. They maintain the same facing (no pivot), can't do it if they start adjacent to an enemy and can't move adjacent to an enemy.
(ii) If a unit is adjacent to an enemy unit then it can't move except to pivot, or to retreat as the result of close combat.
(iii) Units are not considered adjacent if the hexside between them is impassable terrain, such as a river. They may still be able to shoot at each other of course.
(iv) A unit can always move adjacent to an enemy unit, even if it can't charge that unit, if the hex it enters is considered difficult terrain by, or is impassable to, the enemy unit.
I'm beginning to think that maybe treating any move adjacent to an enemy as a charge opens up too many issues and exceptions. Would it not be simpler to allow all units to move adjacent to an enemy, and having a charge as something certain units can initiate even immediately after such a move or if they already start in such a position? And then forbid units which start adjacent to an enemy from moving (aside from a pivot) to create a 'locked in place' effect and prevent units slipping past each other. The six by six grid is quite tight if you have a 'forbidden zone' around some units; I would hope this might open the game up a little.
I may give it a try over the next few days and see how it goes.
Thanks for your further feedback, its great! All of those suggestions sound good to me. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of your testing.
There is another way of looking at things which would not make charging compulsory and would allow a bonus for firing at adjacent units (if your attacking unit survived the defensive fire of course). This changes the geometry of the game, especially if using the card based activation which means that almost anything can happen, especially if all charges were then resolved at the end of the turn. Sorry, not properly described but I think I know what I'm banging on about.
Another question - what purpose do Light Cavalry serve in the game? They have all of the same rules and factors as regular Cavalry, but don't enjoy the +1 when 'charging'. They's just basically 'inferior' cavalry with no obvious advantage to their role.
A very good point. I'm not sure that the original SiP properly distinguished the light cavalry battlefield role. From my point of view LC should be mobile and flexible (remove difficult terrain roll and/or facing?), but shouldn't be used as a type of dragoon (i.e. no firing). Their natural enemy is other light troops and disordered troops. I'll have to give this some further thought.
Great stuff.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the summary and collection of docs.
I'm actually thinking the campaign system would work well for a wider scale 'Monmouth's Rebellion' style game.
Thanks for this FAQ.
ReplyDeleteA couple of additions I've been using:
(i) I allow units to make a 1 hex move directly to their rear. They maintain the same facing (no pivot), can't do it if they start adjacent to an enemy and can't move adjacent to an enemy.
(ii) If a unit is adjacent to an enemy unit then it can't move except to pivot, or to retreat as the result of close combat.
(iii) Units are not considered adjacent if the hexside between them is impassable terrain, such as a river. They may still be able to shoot at each other of course.
(iv) A unit can always move adjacent to an enemy unit, even if it can't charge that unit, if the hex it enters is considered difficult terrain by, or is impassable to, the enemy unit.
I'm beginning to think that maybe treating any move adjacent to an enemy as a charge opens up too many issues and exceptions. Would it not be simpler to allow all units to move adjacent to an enemy, and having a charge as something certain units can initiate even immediately after such a move or if they already start in such a position? And then forbid units which start adjacent to an enemy from moving (aside from a pivot) to create a 'locked in place' effect and prevent units slipping past each other. The six by six grid is quite tight if you have a 'forbidden zone' around some units; I would hope this might open the game up a little.
ReplyDeleteI may give it a try over the next few days and see how it goes.
Hi Kaptain,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your further feedback, its great! All of those suggestions sound good to me. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of your testing.
There is another way of looking at things which would not make charging compulsory and would allow a bonus for firing at adjacent units (if your attacking unit survived the defensive fire of course). This changes the geometry of the game, especially if using the card based activation which means that almost anything can happen, especially if all charges were then resolved at the end of the turn. Sorry, not properly described but I think I know what I'm banging on about.
All the best
Jay
Another question - what purpose do Light Cavalry serve in the game? They have all of the same rules and factors as regular Cavalry, but don't enjoy the +1 when 'charging'. They's just basically 'inferior' cavalry with no obvious advantage to their role.
ReplyDeleteHi Kaptain,
ReplyDeleteA very good point. I'm not sure that the original SiP properly distinguished the light cavalry battlefield role. From my point of view LC should be mobile and flexible (remove difficult terrain roll and/or facing?), but shouldn't be used as a type of dragoon (i.e. no firing). Their natural enemy is other light troops and disordered troops. I'll have to give this some further thought.
Thanks for the pointer on this one!
Jay