See here (https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=3779.0).
Change "Unused PBS cards may not be used for scouting."
Change "If scouting difference 10, 20 or 30% then deploy 1/3rd of army, not percentage difference."
Retaining PBS cards for scouting was becoming an automatic choice and distorting the system in favour of armies with professional generals with a higher PBS. The second change simplifies the deployment and avoids anomalies that can occur due to rounding the number of UGs.
Just interested 7.2 unused PBS can't be used for scouting. What problem is this trying to fix?
Quote from: sstoker22 on September 02, 2025, 09:44:53 AMJust interested 7.2 unused PBS can't be used for scouting. What problem is this trying to fix?
Professional generals hoarding RED cards and getting a big scouting benefit over horse archer and similar armies with instinctive generals.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 02, 2025, 10:30:39 AMQuote from: sstoker22 on September 02, 2025, 09:44:53 AMJust interested 7.2 unused PBS can't be used for scouting. What problem is this trying to fix?
Professional generals hoarding RED cards and getting a big scouting benefit over horse archer and similar armies with instinctive generals.
I initially disliked this idea, but after some thought, coupled with the minimum 1/3rd deployment in PBS, this will encourage more scouting options taken and avoid the Instinctive scouting 6 frequently being outscouted by the professional scouting 2. Seen it 3 times this year.
Interesting but it will meet some resistance
I think it's a fair enough idea - watching Roman armies outscout horse archer armies so often is grating. Perhaps we can add that as another (minor) reason why people do not use horse archer armies.
Understand the problem not that I've seen it. But a possible outcome with more than 6PBS having less utility is an increase in mediocre professional commanders.
If you need the terrain you want it still will be interesting
Quote from: badhabum on September 03, 2025, 02:21:42 PMIf you need the terrain you want it still will be interesting
Agreed
Quote from: badhabum on September 03, 2025, 02:21:42 PMIf you need the terrain you want it still will be interesting
[/Quote from: badhabum on September 03, 2025, 02:21:42 PMIf you need the terrain you want it still will be interesting
Will this be enough to warrant the pts. Combined with the pts reduction to commanders It may be a race to the bottom (well mediocre)
I think the removal of carrying cards over from PBS to scouting is a terrible idea. It removes an important decision point in the pre-GT1 play. That clever foot army commanders may have manoeuvred their opponents into a position where the only way to enter the battle area makes it very easy to see what the vanguard is going to have to do, is what is being represented by the keeping of PBS cards to the scouting phase. It is not a universal truth that lots of scouting types means you get to know what the opponent is doing. Clever manoeuvre, covering forces and deception may all have an impact on the surprise of what is where. Again better commanders are more likely to pull this off and so keeping their unused PBS cards represents this well.
That a few shooty cav types get occasionally out-scouted and complain about it loudly is no reason to fix something that is not actually broken.
It isn't the main reason for the proposal, although RJC mentioned a big advantage over horse archer armies and similar as a factor - I think I can safely say that none of the authors would be in favour of it if that was the only rationale ;D
The main reason is "Retaining PBS cards for scouting was becoming an automatic choice and distorting the system in favour of armies with professional generals with a higher PBS." so a combination of getting back some actual choice and mitigatinmg what we see as too much of an advantage for some army builds.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 08, 2025, 08:31:38 PMIt isn't the main reason for the proposal, although RJC mentioned a big advantage over horse archer armies and similar as a factor - I think I can safely say that none of the authors would be in favour of it if that was the only rationale ;D
The main reason is "Retaining PBS cards for scouting was becoming an automatic choice and distorting the system in favour of armies with professional generals with a higher PBS." so a combination of getting back some actual choice and mitigatinmg what we see as too much of an advantage for some army builds.
So removing a choice gives more choice!?! And spending points to get an advantage in 1 phase of the game and so losing troops is not a valid strategy but is instead to much of an advantage. I cannot see these as being a convincing arguments. However, I don't suppose my opinion will carry enough weight to influence the decision.
Quote from: steads on September 11, 2025, 02:39:04 AMQuote from: nikgaukroger on September 08, 2025, 08:31:38 PMIt isn't the main reason for the proposal, although RJC mentioned a big advantage over horse archer armies and similar as a factor - I think I can safely say that none of the authors would be in favour of it if that was the only rationale ;D
The main reason is "Retaining PBS cards for scouting was becoming an automatic choice and distorting the system in favour of armies with professional generals with a higher PBS." so a combination of getting back some actual choice and mitigatinmg what we see as too much of an advantage for some army builds.
So removing a choice gives more choice!?! And spending points to get an advantage in 1 phase of the game and so losing troops is not a valid strategy but is instead to much of an advantage. I cannot see these as being a convincing arguments. However, I don't suppose my opinion will carry enough weight to influence the decision.
I think the issue is more that anyone with more than 6 PBS cards would always just save the best for scouting (I know I usually do). For many armies (infantry heavy ones especially) terrain isn't a make or break factor. If you end up in the right terrain type you're probably fine with wherever it ends up on the terrain table, and you end up controlling half the placement anyway. The result was that more PBS cards was actually more useful for scouting than more scout cards. I'm not sure the stats off hand but I can easily imagine the best card in a hand of 7 is better than 2-3 randomly drawn.
Totally disagree with this change.
Quote from: steads on September 08, 2025, 08:07:28 PMI think the removal of carrying cards over from PBS to scouting is a terrible idea. It removes an important decision point in the pre-GT1 play. That clever foot army commanders may have manoeuvred their opponents into a position where the only way to enter the battle area makes it very easy to see what the vanguard is going to have to do, is what is being represented by the keeping of PBS cards to the scouting phase. It is not a universal truth that lots of scouting types means you get to know what the opponent is doing. Clever manoeuvre, covering forces and deception may all have an impact on the surprise of what is where. Again better commanders are more likely to pull this off and so keeping their unused PBS cards represents this well.
That a few shooty cav types get occasionally out-scouted and complain about it loudly is no reason to fix something that is not actually broken.
and we get a year of play testing to see if that is the case. My opinion is its the red counting double against it nearest colour that causes the fundamental problem in scouting disparities. Make all colours counts as a flat 20% each and a 10% bonus for professional AC would smooth the bumps a bit more, imho. Plus keeping the card carry over
Quote from: tarnowski1 on September 13, 2025, 09:15:35 AMand we get a year of play testing to see if that is the case.
How are we going to verify this?
Genuine question: those who think this is a good idea will get the random out-scouting-fest they expect and will play in terrain that is not quite what they hoped for (and will possibly then blame the terrain rules :)))
Those few of us who hate this change will get slightly better terrain and out-scouted a lot more than they would have expected (and will blame the rule change Obvs).
Therefore there is no likelihood of this being play-tested in a way that doesn't have a pre-ordained outcome.
The upshot for me is likely to be shit generals and the points spent on hordes of shit light-foot
Quote from: steads on September 13, 2025, 02:10:59 PMHow are we going to verify this?
Genuine question: those who think this is a good idea will get the random out-scouting-fest they expect and will play in terrain that is not quite what they hoped for (and will possibly then blame the terrain rules :)))
Those few of us who hate this change will get slightly better terrain and out-scouted a lot more than they would have expected (and will blame the rule change Obvs).
Not automatically, Steve.
If foot army goes for mediocre AC as you suggest, then terrain might not be as bad as you think it will be. Furthermore, if an Instinctive-led horse archer army goes with anything less than Talented AC and gets bad terrain, its general has no one to blame but himself :P
Quote from: steads on September 13, 2025, 02:10:59 PMTherefore there is no likelihood of this being play-tested in a way that doesn't have a pre-ordained outcome.
It would thus require a deliberate testing where the players agree not to go for a Mediocre AC then
Quote from: steads on September 13, 2025, 02:10:59 PMThe upshot for me is likely to be shit generals and the points spent on hordes of shit light-foot
Well not many people seem to use skirmishers (at least in my scene), that might change it.
Best,
Antoine
Quote from: steads on September 13, 2025, 02:10:59 PMQuote from: tarnowski1 on September 13, 2025, 09:15:35 AMand we get a year of play testing to see if that is the case.
How are we going to verify this?
Genuine question: those who think this is a good idea will get the random out-scouting-fest they expect and will play in terrain that is not quite what they hoped for (and will possibly then blame the terrain rules :)))
Those few of us who hate this change will get slightly better terrain and out-scouted a lot more than they would have expected (and will blame the rule change Obvs).
Therefore there is no likelihood of this being play-tested in a way that doesn't have a pre-ordained outcome.
The upshot for me is likely to be shit generals and the points spent on hordes of shit light-foot
currently a competent professional general with 14 Light horse skirmishers has a pbs of 7 and scouting of 3. A legendary Instinctive General with the same light horse also has a a PBS of 7 and a scouting of 3.
you pay 700 points for a competent professional with far more additional benefits than a 1400 point instinctive legendary.
Currently for non-legendary instinctive ACs' its already a totally random outscouting fest when playing even a basic competent Professional as 3 random scouting cards is less likely to generate a Red card (for the magic 40% bump) than the professional's deal of 10 cards in total. The professional has to be 'unlucky' not to get dealt a red in his 7 PBS cards, a Instinctive general has to be lucky to get a red with 5 scouting cards let alone 3.
so yes new rules may well be more random but then instinctive generals wont notice the difference.
There was 1 talented or higher professional General at Britcon, 16 entries
There were 2 talented or higher professional General at Attack, 14 entries
There were 3 talented or higher professional General at Thus Spoke, 22 entries.
I'm not sure the generals can get much more 'shit'
on the basis i replace my cards and dice every other game ;D , as they have proven incompetent, my professional generals rarely if ever outscout proper cavalry armies the extra cards occaisonally will limit the damage.