Thanks, I got some right, some wrong.

(And today also learnt that files fighting as an overlap do not shoot when charged)

A couple of questions came up today at CANCON

1. Forced Charge burst through Skirmishers.
Charging Lancers burst through a mounted TUG in front of them
The sequence of play is:

• 2.2 Declare charges
• 2.5 Shoot Chargers
• 2.6 Move Chargers

In theory this means that the Charging Lancers are protected from being shot at by the unit we they are charging as there is no specific timing for when the Skirmishers are removed though H6.4 implies it is as the chargers move, so the sequence suggests that the Defenders do not get to shoot.

2. Contact own skirmishers in pursuit (and need more than 1/2 base width shift to avoid)
Do the pursuers stop on contact (9.7 C 7.1), destroy them as a breakthrough (as per charging) or push the skirmishers aside (H4.3). Different sections of the rules suggest all three are valid options.

3. Pursuit in the Charge phase, if a unit pursues in the contact phase and contact a new enemy they fight immediately (8 SP2.8 8.6) can this occur more than once in a charge phase? eg A TUG destroys a en TUG on the charge, hits another fights and destroys it, and then hits a third, does it fight the 3rd unit? There appear to be no limits

Quote from: Doomsmile on October 10, 2025, 09:33:19 PMAgain, train's already left the station... but hindsight, yeah? XP

If the train has left the station, then why are we even posting these 'suggestions' for discussion?

Quote from: SteveO on October 08, 2025, 11:37:34 PMSimilarly, the Athenians were nervous about facing the Persian foot archers at Marathon but they still won.

Given most surviving accounts are effectively hagiographies, they are hardly going to say we treated the enemy with contempt and strolled over them!

Realistically cavalry's primary advantage over infantry is choosing the time and place of the battle, so by default infantry will be wary of cavalry, especially in rolling countryside with no communications systems for forward scouts.

I have a feeling that this is moving too far from the original intent of the rules, to enable 5000 years of history to be gamed with a single ruleset, and not confining armies to their period. There is an impression that this is becoming more a simulation "we believe/the evidence suggests" than an inclusive game.

In practice a 12 foot spear in the hands of a competent warrior will stop cavalry if used appropriately. Now hoplite doctrine in 800 BC will not be the same as medieval foot doctrine in 1300, however the man behind the spear still has a brain. Thus there is no reason that a time-travelling Spartan would not essentially copy the doctrine of the 1300s or are we assuming nil agency of the warrior?

A much simpler solution is to simply theme the tournaments to time periods (as is already done) rather than create an artificial weapon system.

ie if we don't want hoplites beating CL/DC/ME then simply do not have the situation. To me, this proposal is a solution looking for a problem (apologies to the playtesters who have put hours into considering the approach, but I still do not see this as a real problem)

The worst aspect of it, is it will discourage players who like their Greek History and build their first army and have a really really hard time against many other foes. The only reason I played MeG after utter disgust at WRG, Dbx, etc, is that it was the first set I actually encountered (in far too many years of looking) that enabled a Roman Army to have a reasonable chance as the balance between the different weapons and troop types was reasonably balanced.

So I ask again, is there a simpler way of addressing the percieved problem that the writers have of ahistorical use of hoplites?

Hi Bahabum, it is an interesting challenge - clarifying rules is good - simplifying, maybe but there can be unintended consequences, completely new ideas eg 'spears' or exceptions is adding complexity and may also have unintended consequences.

When the simplifying and new item lists have well over 10 items and threads, perhaps it is time to draft a completely new rule set from the ground up as the interactions become hugely complex to consider.

This really is starting to sound like "I spoke to Phil last night" Seriously if the UK want their own home-brew tournament rules, go right ahead, but why totally annoy the entire player base?

Precisely what are we trying to do?

Perhaps as we are simplifying combine 2HCC and PA into one!

There is a general issue with mixed TuGs, some must have best troops in the front rank Knights with Men-at-arms, others are less proscriptive. Consistency would be nice or some designer notes in the lists where exceptions exist

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 15, 2025, 09:47:52 AMI have done a lot of play testing of these amendments for well over six months.  Have you actually played any games with the amendments?

Richard, thank you for your play testing.

Having typed several responses to your statement, I shall simply bow out of the discussion

To an extent I agree, flexibles full stop are a problem, the issues of infantry flexibles (primarily terrain) and mounted flexibles (primarily being unprotected) are different, at present they pay an awful lot for not much utility, and it is an area that could do with extensive playtesting and thought, starting with what outcomes you actually want to represent for both.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 15, 2025, 06:47:02 AMA fair point on periodisation. However, I don't believe this is the start of a process to introduce more such classifications; we've (authors) certainly not discussed any that I can recall.

It may not be deliberate, but it is the outcome of the proposals when taken as a whole.

The rules as they stand work well across periods. They effectively assume that the troops have agency, and will use their weapons (spear/bow/horse etc) as effectively as that weapon can be used against any opponent. Thus hoplites can effectively fight against heavy cavalry (which they never historically had the opportunity to do so) as effectively as a professional spearman in the middle ages, this means that I can fight across periods.

What you are proposing breaks this (similarly with some of the other changes). Whilst you may fix a perceived problem (hoplites should not be an anti-cavalry weapon) you will create other problems and risk breaking the game

If you want such a major change (and some of these are quite major not clarifications) I would suggest playtesting a full V2.0 recognising that V1.x works pretty well, and that tinkering will never satisfy everyone and constant tinkering may drive away your player base.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 08, 2025, 09:41:26 AMI think one thing that makes them hard to play is that it is hard to get the Flexible types right when playing - by which I mean when to be Skirmisher and when to be Loose, and this is quite often determined by whether they will be facing shooters; also when to switch is another tricky thing to get right.

That is a problem with all flexibles - the need to waste a card changing formation significantly hinders them. Rarely do I see a change, mostly they start in one formation and stay that way, so they have flexibility in where they are deployed (terrain) but not in movement

Given that open or closed formation is really an issue for the unit commander, not the general, I would propose, like in some other rule sets that they should automatically change formation to be in the appropriate/best formation for the terrain that they are in, and perhaps only need a card upgrade to change formation in other circumstances

I see this as beginning to break the rules into different periods that are not compatible with each other, much like the issues with ReG. The rules as they stand play fairly well with armies from 5000 BCE to 1600 CE with no major issues, precisely because we don't fuss whether or not a spear used in 3000 BCE is different from one in 1500 CE, and assume that the soldier would use them appropriately.

If we go down this path, then I fear you will further splinter the player group, and others may move back to rules where they don't have to worry too much what army their friend brings, they can still have a game.

ReG has struggled to take off here in Australia, precisely because the forces between books are not really compatible with playing against each other.

Hi Nik, thanks for the follow up clarification

Thanks, and I fully agree they are far from useless (except when my dice rolls suck... 9 x green and yellow for zero hits), we're just seeking clarification. We did play it as per Nik's advice, as that's the conservative approach.