|
Post by snowcat on Nov 24, 2023 11:40:47 GMT
I'm not completely convinced yet. Possibly because it's unlike any other ideas for LH I've come across.
(Might have merit.)
1. Would it make LH too powerful? 2. Why are Wb in the exclusion list? (Just because they're already crap vs mounted?)
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Nov 24, 2023 12:52:53 GMT
This is an inspired idea, meshes well with the phantom overlap near the board edges. And that is a goddam awful rule that needs to go… P
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Nov 24, 2023 13:03:33 GMT
This is an inspired idea, meshes well with the phantom overlap near the board edges. And that is a goddam awful rule that needs to go… P Got to be in line for most unremembered rule ever.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Nov 24, 2023 13:30:06 GMT
I'm not completely convinced yet. Possibly because it's unlike any other ideas for LH I've come across. (Might have merit.) 1. Would it make LH too powerful? 2. Why are Wb in the exclusion list? (Just because they're already crap vs mounted?) Ad 1. I don't think so. Up to now it has simply been too weak. And moving them in single units around is a constant pip drain. Ad 2. Yes, because they are already crap. But I imagine their impetous (and unpredictable) style of fighting might be a small advantage for them, so it is harder for the LH to surround them.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Nov 24, 2023 13:50:29 GMT
This is an inspired idea, meshes well with the phantom overlap near the board edges. It doesn't solve the problem LHs have with Bws, but it's a neat idea nonetheless. Concerning the DC of Bw we might try this: Let's say the number of free flanks of the LH provides the overlaps? Because as a single unit they are nimbly on the move. And harder to hit than a massive bulk of heavy horses. Bd Bd Bw Bd Cv (Bw CF: +4–1–1=+2) LH (CF=+2) This would btw encourage echelon attacks ...
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Nov 24, 2023 20:16:27 GMT
A new idea! I absolutely don’t hate it and want to try it out. I get the historical logic behind it…..BUT how does this mesh with the +1 for rear support? Might be OP if +3 and overlaps…..but were LH in that situation stronger than Cav?
Phantom Overlaps - agree. I get the logic of the intent but not the execution of the rule.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 25, 2023 0:32:27 GMT
I'm not completely convinced yet. Possibly because it's unlike any other ideas for LH I've come across. (Might have merit.) 1. Would it make LH too powerful? 2. Why are Wb in the exclusion list? (Just because they're already crap vs mounted?) Ad 1. I don't think so. Up to now it has simply been too weak. And moving them in single units around is a constant pip drain. Ad 2. Yes, because they are already crap. But I imagine their impetous (and unpredictable) style of fighting might be a small advantage for them, so it is harder for the LH to surround them. Re 1. The rear support for LH would surely have to go then. (A good thing.) Re 2. Warband were historically easy pickings for mounted archers. So no. (But if Wb - or at least solid Wb - were CF 3 vs mounted, this might offset the issue.)
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 25, 2023 2:07:21 GMT
This is an inspired idea, meshes well with the phantom overlap near the board edges. It doesn't solve the problem LHs have with Bws, but it's a neat idea nonetheless. Concerning the DC of Bw we might try this: Let's say the number of free flanks of the LH provides the overlaps? Because as a single unit they are nimbly on the move. And harder to hit than a massive bulk of heavy horses. Bd Bd Bw Bd Cv (Bw CF: +4–1–1=+2) LH (CF=+2) This would btw encourage echelon attacks ... My first reaction to this was 'no'.
Then I thought about it a bit more, and '...hang on a minute, that could actually work!' got a guernsey. It even supports one of the things I've been banging on about for years: the target rich environment of clumped mounted vs harder to hit dispersed bands of LH - but in a fresh way.
Really liking the lateral thinking here BB. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Nov 25, 2023 10:26:21 GMT
Concerning the DC of Bw we might try this: Let's say the number of free flanks of the LH provides the overlaps? Because as a single unit they are nimbly on the move. And harder to hit than a massive bulk of heavy horses. Bd Bd Bw Bd Cv (Bw CF: +4–1–1=+2) LH (CF=+2) This would btw encourage echelon attacks ... My first reaction to this was 'no'.
Then I thought about it a bit more, and '...hang on a minute, that could actually work!' got a guernsey. It even supports one of the things I've been banging on about for years: the target rich environment of clumped mounted vs harder to hit dispersed bands of LH - but in a fresh way.
Really liking the lateral thinking here BB. Well done. Thank you, that's very kind of you. But I only transferred the idea of phantom overlaps or fighting like being overlapped to LH. It has been lying around all the time... What I like best about it is: once again it is a 'positional rule' and fits nicely into the dba world... But I still need to test them. So, on to battle!
|
|