PDA

View Full Version : 3.0 Spontaneous Advance (SA)


Sea Weathered Aketons
12-21-2011, 10:41 AM
Having watched the debate here on 3.0 (I'm a 2.2 guy) I think one rule that would be great and add to the games enjoyment would be some of spontaneous advance rule,for Kn & Wb, where you would have to pay pips to hold 'em.

SWA

Inanna'sBoyToy
12-21-2011, 12:02 PM
I like this rule! :D:up

Sea Weathered Aketons
12-21-2011, 12:22 PM
Just so everyone is clear...SA here would mean something like advancing towards nearest enemy in a group once in sight (400 Paces?) but, without the crazy individual movement of DBM where your Kn or Wb would arrive in a jumbled mess!

Simply put the SA on end the army list where it applies, that way Regular Knight armies would not be affected while Irregular Knights would.

SWA

larryessick
12-21-2011, 12:45 PM
Having used spontaneous advance in DBM and watched the ways in which players abused it to their advantage, I think it would be a horrible thing to introduce to DBA.

If people think that trying to decipher the intent of rules now is difficult or that the amount of writing required to clarify how to do things under the current test version is excessive, they will be completely overwhelmed by the amount of verbiage needed to convey both intent and method while avoiding misuse and abuse.

Sea Weathered Aketons
12-21-2011, 02:11 PM
Most WRG Ancients/Medieval Rules of the past have featured some form of rules for certain types of units running out of control.

Examples include 2nd Edition Rennaissance, 6th Edition, 7th Edition and of course DBM. The intent here would be to keep with that tradition and satisfy the many players (myself included) who enjoy the challenge of playing our army once our troops have run out of control.

A simple diagram added at the back could "clear up" any unintelligible language issues.....

SWA

Inanna'sBoyToy
12-21-2011, 02:21 PM
Having used spontaneous advance in DBM and watched the ways in which players abused it to their advantage, I think it would be a horrible thing to introduce to DBA.

If people think that trying to decipher the intent of rules now is difficult or that the amount of writing required to clarify how to do things under the current test version is excessive, they will be completely overwhelmed by the amount of verbiage needed to convey both intent and method while avoiding misuse and abuse.

So your stance on "Playtest and try this out before discounting it" is out the window then?

Please bear in mind I play DBA. I have no care in the world what impact DBM has on the game whatsoever. I don't play it nor does my group.

Rong
12-21-2011, 02:22 PM
Normally, in wrg4, SA occurred with Irregular A troops with consistancy. And Irr D troops to some extent, depending on the morale check. One guy we gamed with had an all Irr A army. As soon as the first moral check, off went the army! :D

Sea Weathered Aketons
12-21-2011, 02:42 PM
My D Class Gordon Horse (Montrose) were always running out of control in 2nd Edition Rennaissance! Usually to disaster!

Actually since we're only talking 12 elements I guess the SA individual movement, once a group was broken up into individual elements, would be ok as how much of a jumbled mess could it be with only 12 elements?

SWA

Rich Gause
12-21-2011, 04:02 PM
Most WRG Ancients/Medieval Rules of the past have featured some form of rules for certain types of units running out of control.

Examples include 2nd Edition Rennaissance, 6th Edition, 7th Edition and of course DBM. The intent here would be to keep with that tradition and satisfy the many players (myself included) who enjoy the challenge of playing our army once our troops have run out of control.

A simple diagram added at the back could "clear up" any unintelligible language issues.....

SWA

I thought that is what mandatory followups were for for Wb, Kn, and ScCh?

larryessick
12-21-2011, 04:07 PM
So your stance on "Playtest and try this out before discounting it" is out the window then?

Please bear in mind I play DBA. I have no care in the world what impact DBM has on the game whatsoever. I don't play it nor does my group.

No, my stance is that it opens up such a can of worms that it is impractical to include it and still retain the relative size of the current DBA rules. Diagrams will not suffice as they cannot cover every possible permutation and impetuous troops running amok with spontaneous moves leaves all sorts of room for abuses.

That you have little experience with DBM only means that you have less awareness of the enormity of the task. But, as with all things, don't listen to me. Go ahead and give it a try. Then try to formulate rules so that you can do and only do the thing your are testing and to ensure that others do and only do the same.

It is a bad idea. Naturally I expect it to receive the full support of many as a result. :eek

Sea Weathered Aketons
12-21-2011, 04:33 PM
I thought that is what mandatory followups were for for Wb, Kn, and ScCh?

Rich,

The kind of movement we're talking here is pre-combat where say Wb run out of control out of woods or off a hill and move towards the enemy. Or say knights running out of control into a marsh chasing foot! These kind of situations happened in older versions of WRG rules and of course happened throughout history. As far as the knights are concerned these type of uncontrolled advances would apply to irregulars, not regulars and thus SA could be "footnoted" at the end of the army list indicating that any irregular Kn in the list were subject to SA.

The movement you're referring to is a post-combat outcome follow-up move or pursuit.

SWA

Rich Gause
12-21-2011, 05:00 PM
Rich,

The kind of movement we're talking here is pre-combat where say Wb run out of control out of woods or off a hill and move towards the enemy. Or say knights running out of control into a marsh chasing foot! These kind of situations happened in older versions of WRG rules and of course happened throughout history. As far as the knights are concerned these type of uncontrolled advances would apply to irregulars, not regulars and thus SA could be "footnoted" at the end of the army list indicating that any irregular Kn in the list were subject to SA.

The movement you're referring to is a post-combat outcome follow-up move or pursuit.

SWA

I know what the SA movement being proposed is and I know what the 2.2 followup moves are. This would be a case of IMO not for DBA complexity. People can always play DBMM 100-120 if they want that sort of thing.

platypus01
12-21-2011, 05:18 PM
Rich is right. The SA rules in DBMM take a whole page. The DBM rules were shorter, but more "art" than science. Honestly, if you want to see 2 players get into a fist fight, SA can oblige you.

Cheers,
JohnG

Sea Weathered Aketons
12-21-2011, 05:51 PM
Rich is right. The SA rules in DBMM take a whole page. The DBM rules were shorter, but more "art" than science. Honestly, if you want to see 2 players get into a fist fight, SA can oblige you.

Cheers,
JohnG

Perhaps your right but, I never seemed to have any "problems" with units running out of control in the old days of 2nd Ed. Ren. 6th or 7th......

How about we ditch the BUA rules (always barred from use in our tourneys here) and replace with SA? I really want to see some knights forced to charge into bad going trying to punish presumptuous foot! :)

SWA

Rich Gause
12-21-2011, 06:23 PM
Perhaps your right but, I never seemed to have any "problems" with units running out of control in the old days of 2nd Ed. Ren. 6th or 7th......

How about we ditch the BUA rules (always barred from use in our tourneys here) and replace with SA? I really want to see some knights forced to charge into bad going trying to punish presumptuous foot! :)

SWA

I think most people, myself included, would rather have SA than the current BUA rules if the reality wasn't going to be that we are just going to ignore the stupid BUA rules as we do currently. If there is one bad rule from 2.2 that got even worse in 3.0 that would be it; all the former stupidity but now with sallies by the denizens but only from the gate locations.

Macbeth
12-21-2011, 06:34 PM
My experience with WRG began with 5th edition where there was an uncontrolled advance for Irregulars and an unauthorised advance for regulars determined by the reaction test.

Come 6th this was changed to become impetuous and again governed by the reaction test.

I always liked that the band for doing the right thing for D grades was narrow - if the situation was good they would go nuts, if bad they would go home :D

In 7th there was less scope for a spontaneous advance unless the command went onto Rush Orders - Irregular A grade might find themselves forced into foolish moves when on Probe Orders (in effect being required to be more aggressive under Probe than under Attack) which was I think a mechanism for countering the way many players (myself in the forefront) abused the combination of Probe Orders and IrrA troops in the first run of 7th (go the Ku****e Egyptians).

7th/Warrior left a lot of scope for ensuring no spontaneous advances - and I do miss them

BUT

In a PIP managament game I am not sure you want something that seriously reduces the number of PIPs required to get the main line up to the enemy.

Cheers

Sea Weathered Aketons
12-21-2011, 06:44 PM
"In a PIP managament game I am not sure you want something that seriously reduces the number of PIPs required to get the main line up to the enemy."

How about giving Wb double move once in SA? In other words 1 pip for 2 moves? OR better still, free movement to contact when in SA?

That would fix the problem....

.....and create some others!:)

SWA

Macbeth
12-21-2011, 09:11 PM
My plan for spontaneous advances would be that if a certain number of PIPs were rolled then SA likely troops MUST advance

Either

on a 6 then the PIPs must be spent on those troops

OR

on a 1 then these troops move for free - the 1 PIP can be spent to hold one group of these in place

You could limit SA to those troops who are within a certain distance (say 8BW) of enemy and where they have line of sight to said enemy

It sounds like a great DBA with a Twist idea for one of my May Tournaments - we can give it a test run or two in 2012 and run it in 2013

** I already have plans for my DBA with a Twist for May 2012

"Universal Soldier" where Hd will give rear support

Cheers

Sea Weathered Aketons
12-21-2011, 10:06 PM
Interesting. So if I understand SA likely troops would most likely go SA 1/3 of the time on a 1 or 6. When the 6 is rolled and let's say there are 3 Kn as individual elements that are SA likely, would you use 3 pips to move them and the other 3 are lost?

SWA

Macbeth
12-21-2011, 10:20 PM
Not quite so harsh SWA

the idea was for one or the other so a worst case in 1 in 6 not 1 in 3

ie

6 rule - SA troops must advance and drain the PIPs required to move them - once they have been moved surplus PIPs can be used on other parts of the army

or

1 rule - SA troops advance for no cost, general may spend 1 PIP to hold a SA group in place or use it to move another group

Both rules do force players to keep their SA troops in groups rather than spreading them out across their line.

Note that I do also suggest that they have enemy in sight and within 8BW - it does mean that in the early stages of the game they might not be called upon to advance

Cheers

Alan Saunders
12-22-2011, 12:10 AM
Simply put the SA on end the army list where it applies, that way Regular Knight armies would not be affected while Irregular Knights would.

SWA

Just what DBA needs - more list-specific abilities.

Bob Santamaria
12-22-2011, 12:19 AM
I would be very against spontaneous advance moves. It was one of the things that made me always spurn DBM.

Adrian

PubliusTerentius
12-22-2011, 12:35 AM
I am a fan of SA.

I have experimented with using the DBM 3 language on spontaneous advance in the context of a DBA 2.x scenario game. As a DBM player who used to run Normans and Early Crusaders, I had to grapple with those rules enough to have a sense of what was supposed to happen (and...er...how to abuse them.)

I found that when moderated by an organizer -- not a player in one of the affected games -- the interpretation and movement was simple and worked very well. NB this was a social/non-competitive game.

But based on tournament DBM play where the SA rules are at least incorporated into the rules and not and add-on, SA procedures are still pretty contentious.

I would highly recommend SA for scenario games. I am working on a scenario now for Nechtansmere in 685AD that uses them. Incorporating a set of SA mods to DBA is probably not the right direction for regular play. Length of discussion in the rules, pip impact, army list impact and just generally adding complexity are game (or meta-game) reasons to leave SA out. Contentiousness and ill-will are probably the most practical reasons for exclusion.

I'll try to post Nechtansmere soon after we have run through a few trials.

Bobgnar
12-22-2011, 01:23 AM
Mega Dittos to Adrian on this. It seemed like a nice idea but it never seemed to work. I once suggested that the opponent move a player's spontaneous troops.

This is getting us much too close to the Big Rules.

I would be very against spontaneous advance moves. It was one of the things that made me always spurn DBM.

Adrian

Sea Weathered Aketons
12-22-2011, 01:35 AM
Good insight from all of you. I may suggest Macbeth's 1 & 6 idea for a play test in at my club & if successful, an informal mini-tourney based on it. Also, PT's excellent idea for scenarios I will suggest.

SWA

Sea Weathered Aketons
12-22-2011, 01:47 AM
I am a proponent of less complexity, not more - most of the time. I recently re-read 1.1 and how refreshing....24 pages vs our current 52. But, I'm painting a Wb army and the idea came upon me this morning as I remembered SA and the fireworks display of the older rule sets.

SWA

david kuijt
12-22-2011, 01:59 AM
I am a proponent of less complexity, not more - most of the time. I recently re-read 1.1 and how refreshing....24 pages vs our current 52.

The difference is mostly army lists, SWA. The rules themselves are almost the same length -- about 6 pages, between pp5 and 11 or so.

Kingo
12-22-2011, 02:58 AM
Just what DBA needs - more list-specific abilities.

YES DBA DOES NEED MORE LIST SPECIFIC ABILITIES :up

IMHO

Kingo

Richard Lee
12-22-2011, 03:33 AM
I think that if you have impetuous knights and non-impetuous knights you are inserting the 'irregular' versus 'regular' level of complexity into DBA. This would make DBA more complicated. There are already games that cater for slightly greater complexity (DBM and DBMM).

Martyn
12-22-2011, 05:07 AM
I think that if you have impetuous knights and non-impetuous knights you are inserting the 'irregular' versus 'regular' level of complexity into DBA. This would make DBA more complicated. There are already games that cater for slightly greater complexity (DBM and DBMM).

I tend to agree, presumably DBMM 100/200 would give that additional level of complexity.

I would be concerned that if SA were added what else would people want to add; troop gradings, stratagems, ad infinitium. Exploring possible additional rules is a useful exercise, and a house rule can be used where appropriate.

Sea Weathered Aketons
12-22-2011, 10:03 AM
God Bless Coffee! :) Now where was I.......oh yes SA and 3.0.

Too bad it will never happen (SA in DBA). I guess if I want to see Kn charge into a marsh after taunting foot, I'll simply have to run a tourney on it - maybe with Macbeths idea of 1 and 6.

SWA

Martyn
12-22-2011, 10:14 AM
God Bless Coffee! :) Now where was I.......oh yes SA and 3.0.

Too bad it will never happen (SA in DBA). I guess if I want to see Kn charge into a marsh after taunting foot, I'll simply have to run a tourney on it - maybe with Macbeths idea of 1 and 6.

SWA

Just to be ultra picky :rolleyes I think that in DBM an element of Knights can ignore any enemy element in difficult going i.e. Marsh.

Sea Weathered Aketons
12-22-2011, 10:22 AM
Just to be ultra picky :rolleyes I think that in DBM an element of Knights can ignore any enemy element in difficult going i.e. Marsh.

Not in my tournament they won't! :)

And you can be sure that Wb will be charging off steep hills and out of woods! Why? BECAUSE WE'RE WARBAND! :)

SWA

Sea Weathered Aketons
12-22-2011, 11:03 AM
Speaking of Warband....I just finished 3 mores figures of 12th Century 5 foot 6 inch 125 lb emaciated Highlanders with targes, axes, swords, dirks, bows & spears. (Feudal Castings). Doing Roy Beers III/77 Alternative in Army Notes here. Got approval from our club to run it in tourneys.

SWA

PubliusTerentius
12-22-2011, 11:57 AM
Ok a true confession...

As a DBM player, I often played Nikephorian Byzantines, a regular army with 4 commands. One of my standard tactics was to deploy a small advanced command with 3 elements and a break point of 1 element lost. I would sacrifice one element to force a SA by my irregular opponent. One or more of his irregular commands would go crazy after the two survivors messing up his deployment and command control.

While this was effective, it was also...um...uh...kind of cheesy. This tactic was not universally admired by my opponents.

My justification was that it replicated the effect of a feigned flight, a real strategem used by the Byzantines against irregulars and documented in their military manuals of the time. Nonetheless, as part of a game, the tactic felt like an abuse or manipulation of the game system. It was at the time legal under the rules.

With the advantage of hindsight, it seems this strategem was not so good for everyone's emotional enjoyment of the game. Once again it seems that these strategems work better in the context of a scenario game, a social game and/or a game organized by a GM who is impartial (or at least hostile to everyone.)

I am a fan of strategems but a 12 vs 12 element matchup against a stranger in a tournament at a convention might not be the best place for them. I'd argue that they are better as an optional rule rather than part of the main stream of a rules system.

Still, it was fun to watch them go ape****

Sea Weathered Aketons
12-22-2011, 12:25 PM
We "irregular" players madly accepted the challenge of such "Byzantine" tactics! :)

SWA

Macbeth
12-22-2011, 06:20 PM
Good insight from all of you. I may suggest Macbeth's 1 & 6 idea for a play test in at my club & if successful, an informal mini-tourney based on it. Also, PT's excellent idea for scenarios I will suggest.

SWA

Please keep me informed about how it works SWA - I plan a tournament using these rules for May 2013 as I already have a plan for my DBA with a Twist for 2012

Cheers

Sea Weathered Aketons
12-22-2011, 06:57 PM
Please keep me informed about how it works SWA - I plan a tournament using these rules for May 2013 as I already have a plan for my DBA with a Twist for 2012

Cheers

I will.....

SWA

Pillager
12-26-2011, 08:45 PM
I tend to agree, presumably DBMM 100/200 would give that additional level of complexity.

I would be concerned that if SA were added what else would people want to add; troop gradings, stratagems, ad infinitium. Exploring possible additional rules is a useful exercise, and a house rule can be used where appropriate.

Explore DBMM using DBMM100 or 200 and then you can decide what is reasonable to include in DBA without making it too complex.

Doug
12-26-2011, 10:09 PM
I am a fan of strategems but a 12 vs 12 element matchup against a stranger in a tournament at a convention might not be the best place for them. I'd argue that they are better as an optional rule rather than part of the main stream of a rules system.

If you wanted to include stratagems - then I would get someone to send you the relevant bits of DBMM. Not that you would want to use them all, but they do include things like 'betrayal' (useful against BUA), 'feigned flight' etc.

I wouldn't want to see them incorporated into DBA, as they require a fair bit if extra complexity to work properly, but it would give you some ideas as a starting point. Send me a private message if you want to know more.

Doug
12-26-2011, 10:09 PM
Please keep me informed about how it works SWA - I plan a tournament using these rules for May 2013 as I already have a plan for my DBA with a Twist for 2012

Cheers

Oh dear, now I am scared!!!! :up