I haven't used it since trying it...how would you write a restriction like that into the rules tho??? Napoleonic cavalry did not table sit within charge range. I won't say ever. Because at Waterloo the spent cuirassier units were asked to stand near the english squares that were almost out of ammun...

There is no requirement to shoot correct? So the defender could just limit his fire on the cavalry.

But yes very ahistorical.

philqw78 wrote:Dave Ruddock - MAWS - Central Asian City States

Dave Fairhurst - Oxbridge - Xi Xia

Mike Ulrich - Bunshop - Khwarizmian

Pete Dalby - Winchester - Xi Xia

Phil Jelly - Oxford - Xi Xia

Terry Shaw - Old Blokes from Reigate - Georgian

Glad to see you all have finally joined the Xi Xia train.

The Han was always a good army and will continue to be so - but it's not unbeatable. Of the 4 Han armies fielded in Winchester they placed 2nd, 8th, 17th & 18th out of 24. Without commenting about the true effectiveness of Han, where they finished is only partially helpful if we know where that...

I would include this with the rule changes so when people newly arrive they find them neat and tidy in one place.

Is caltrops a new thing or just your way of describing portable obstacles?

philqw78 wrote:It's not the people who play to win whose behaviour needs to change, it's those that don't want to lose

Phil we all need to change behavior. All the good books say so.

This uses the ITC / Belgarum system and adds a bonus 5 points for sacking your opponent’s camp provided you’ve not lost your own. Or a bonus 5 points for breaking your opponent’s army provided your army is unbroken. Does this mean even if I lose I can get 5 points for the enemy camp? Or if I am bro...

It may be useful to look back at 1-2 recent comps and see how the distribution changes. I realize that is imperfect as camp sacking likely was not recorded.

What is the reason to incentivize the sacking of the camp in draws?

Aside from the gratuitous but correct Ruddock 2nd place jab.

I would suggest that a well written after action report of the battle and details would promote interest and showcase version 3.

dave_r wrote: That was a draw - 9-11.
However, we did completely smash the eventual winners of the tournament 11-9. Then we didn't do too badly.

Ah the Geordie drawmeister at work.

philqw78 wrote:That's it, your not list checking a competition again

How is that punishment?

So watching the discussion on Han.
Does the advantages apply to other mixed foot armies?

It would absolutely work. The only reason for base removal is to make spent units which rally only needs some other note.

Since a unit is functionally 3" wide normally. You are playing 1/3 scale. So your table space is actually less if you drop to 1".

Gentle hills are no good to a manoeuvre force, but great for a sit in terrain defender. The enemy has an equal chance of it being on his side, then its as bad, or worse, than rough going for the attacker This problem with gentle hills has existed in too many rule sets and is not a FOG version anyth...

There is a whole more to thinking on chariots in general that I think a rule set could justify a lot of options. I think there is a case for some of the HCH to be bow rather than shock or both which I know is a no-no in design philosophy. Chariots were depending on author and time period: transport ...

Also if a turn is what 30 minutes we are talking a succession of charges and squadrons or regiments could roll in like waves in succession. There are so many pieces that are "factored in" but we are used to looking at it like its actually exactly like the figures sort of portray.

Please proof for typos.

BrettPT wrote: Anyway, for better or worse v2 is now more-or-less in its final form and there is no more time to test substantive changes in a tournament setting before publication. So we'll have to settle for better, but still not perfect on this one I'm afraid.

True. True. Let's keep whittling out the typos.

Rather than make it possible to break squares to encourage charges, ALL cavalry should test within charge reach of enemy infantry in the open to see if they charge, and if they fail, they do. I certainly agree with the current Version 2 changes to reduce the chances of a square breaking, but I woul...