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

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 PM

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

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 , as they have proven incompetent, my professional generals rarely if ever outscout proper cavalry armies the extra cards occaisonally will limit the damage.