GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
7,813 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
22 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
27 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Commands & Colors: Ancients» Forums » Variants

Subject: House Rule - Imeptuous Warriors? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Martin S
United Kingdom
Bedfordshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't normally adopt House Rules but I wondered whether Warriors should be seen as impetuous (as they are in DBA/DBM wargaming) and always Momentum Advance and battle if they clear their first hex of a unit / leader rather than be given the choice?

Has ayone tried the House Rule: "A full strength Warrior unit must Momentum Advance if after melee it clears the first hex of the enemy unit / leader"?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Reeve
Switzerland
St-Légier
Vaud
flag msg tools
badge
Looking for a game session in Switzerland? Send me a pm!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I never house rule what is not broken.
Warrior rules are not broken.
The "4 dice attack until blocks are lost and the must attack if move 2 hexes" already underlines the impetus factor.
Now, a specific scenario could have a special rule like the one you are proposing, because of historical reasons, however.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How many times have you played C&CA, Martin?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kent Reuber
United States
San Mateo
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've been thinking of something similar to that for Dark Ages. For berzerkers, I've been thinking of them as leaders who are permanently attached to a unit. But the unit that they're attached to must always advance and attack again if possible.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Spinello
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
mb
Robin wrote:
I never house rule what is not broken.
Warrior rules are not broken.
The "4 dice attack until blocks are lost and the must attack if move 2 hexes" already underlines the impetus factor.
Now, a specific scenario could have a special rule like the one you are proposing, because of historical reasons, however.



+1
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Briggs
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Martin,

I think you are going to find that those of us who have played a lot of battles (hundreds in my case) consider the game a very tightly knit program and almost perfect in it's design. Thus, a lot of us pretty much avoid "house rules". That's not to say that your suggestion for impetuous Warriors is not a good suggestion but should be used as a special rule for a specific battle that would need such a rule.

So that's the reason some of us "vets" ask how many times have you played CCA. Many gamers after playing just a few battles want to change the rules. We are trying to suggest, in the most friendly way possible, that you play the game many, many times, without any rules changes, until you are very comfortable with it. You may find that you agree with us. There is an appreciation of the game mechanics that only comes apparent after dozens of game plays.

And, as I always say, it's your game and you can play it however you want and use whatever rules you want. I and those who agree with me are only trying to help you get the most pleasure and satisfaction from this very special and excellent game.

Good gaming and may you roll lots of swords and helmits.
8 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin S
United Kingdom
Bedfordshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I've often seen the "how many times have you played?" and "the game is not broken" comments posted here before and as I said in the OP, I don't use House Rules. My question (posted in the Variants section by the way) was really whether others had already tried this House Rule and whether it made a difference - for good or ill.

I have all the C&C:A expansions and am willing to share comment, views and suggestions here on this public Forum - so people can draw draw their own conclusions about whether I qualify as a "veteran".
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Read the rulebook, plan for all contingencies, and…read the rulebook again.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Martin, I have not tried any other impetuous Warrior rules. Have you tried out your own variant yet? That should be taken as encouragement to try it and tell us about it, so we can learn what you've learned.

There is some allowance for the impetuosity for Warriors in the rules already. For example (from the 3rd ed. rules.):

Quote:
Warrior infantry units may move one hex and battle or move two hexes and battle if the second hex takes them adjacent to an enemy unit (warriors can only move two hexes in order to battle in Close Combat, and this Close Combat is compulsory after a two-hex “charge”). Warrior units are classed as Medium foot units for the purposes of being ordered to move and taking hits.


There's been some debate as to when you have to take this cumpulsory combat, since battles only occur after all movement is complete and you can sequence your battles any way you like.

Frankly, I can't recall a time when I didn't take the opportunity to go ahead and momentum advance and battle again with warriors that eliminated or displaced an enemy unit or leader. Even if they only had one block left, I'd go ahead and run them in, hoping to hurt someone and set them up for someone else rather than hope they'd live out the next turn.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim
United States
Frederick
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Robin wrote:
I never house rule what is not broken.
Warrior rules are not broken....


I'm going to put it out there right now that I have yet to play CC&A (I just got a copy and it looks fantastic) but a house rule does not mean that the game is broken, it can be an addition to make the game more fun or more realistic.

Just my two cents...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Duke
United States
Georgetown
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well said,

Well I have thousands of CCA games under my belt with that number growing weekly and the design is so amazingly robust that you can tweak it any way you like and pigs won't start talking in Latin...

There is a precedent in CCN for a specific scenario rule like this but not in general.

"Impetuous British Cavalry" must continue to advance and conduct breakthrough attacks (like momentum attacks) is an example in one scenario.

If there was a particular battle you wanted to do where you'd read that the warriors/barbarians were impetuous, etc, that would certainly seem to be a plausible use for a house rule.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Briggs
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sduke wrote:
It is funny to see folks fly to the defense of the game that hasn't been attacked. He was just asking a question, let's not burn him at the stake just yet!

Steve, I think you misunderstand me, but that's my fault because I obviously didn't explain my intentions. My purpose for what I wrote was meant to suggest what many of us have discovered through subtantial game play. It is meant as a tip to those who are new to the game. In no way am I trying to tell people how to play the game or "fly to the defense of the game." All I am trying to put forth is something that many of us have found out about the game. That playing with the rules as is, leads to a very deep appreceation of the game.

Again as I said above, I am not trying to tell people what to do, I am just suggesting an approach to learning the game. It's much like learning chess. There are thousands of books on how to play chess. There are also many chess varients, but I don't think anyone would suggest that a new chess player should play varients until they are comfortable with the game. The same goes for CCA. I feel that before people start implementing their own rules, they should give the game as written a dozen or two plays. Then, I think they will be in a much better position to start thinking about rules changes.

I'm going to state this once more and hope you all will understand what I'm trying to do. I do not object to people making their own rules. I believe everyone can play this game however they want. I am merely suggesting, not demanding, that they learn it a certain way. No one has to do this and I don't expect everyone to agree. I just want to share some knowledge that I and many others have discovered. That's it. Take my advice or don't. No one is forcing anyone to do anything.

I'm writing this with all good intentions. No malice, no impetuosity (pun intended). We are all friends here and I respect everyone's desire to play this game and have fun.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Duke
United States
Georgetown
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dave, I think I understood you completely and I put a smiley face so you--and everyone--would know I was partly tongue in cheek.

All good!

We are all friends in the Command and Colors community, and I mean that sincerely. As the game I've played, by far, more than anything else in my collection, I have a deep affection and appreciation for the design as rendered.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Reeve
Switzerland
St-Légier
Vaud
flag msg tools
badge
Looking for a game session in Switzerland? Send me a pm!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Phytoman wrote:
a house rule does not mean that the game is broken, it can be an addition to make the game more fun or more realistic.
I disagree.
You are right in the case of a RPG.
In the case of a wargame, sticking to the rules allows coherence of the gaming community and tourney possibilities.
In the present case, the house rule proposes understates that the Warriors are not well represented by the rules.
This is a "realism argument" which, as most wargamers know, has no objective consistence most of the time.

sduke wrote:
Well said, I was going to suggest everyone just calm down.
Who seems angry or excited here?
The discussion is for the least peacefull.

sduke wrote:
It is funny to see folks fly to the defense of the game that hasn't been attacked. He was just asking a question, let's not burn him at the stake just yet!
So, having a different opinion is not allowed?
Expressing it politely and with full respect of the poster is "burning him at the stake"?

We don't need a cop nor a daddy to prohibit even civilised debates as this one.
If you are irked by this discussion, report the posts to the mods, but don't try to lecture us on what we should do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BrentS
Australia
Sydney
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Robin wrote:
I never house rule what is not broken.
Warrior rules are not broken.
The "4 dice attack until blocks are lost and the must attack if move 2 hexes" already underlines the impetus factor.
Now, a specific scenario could have a special rule like the one you are proposing, because of historical reasons, however.


This variant was posted as a simulation of impetuous warriors, not the impetus of warriors. Very different meaning and not actually covered by the rules as they stand.

I think this looks very interesting, Martin, and I saw your posting not as a suggested rules fix but as the variant I'm sure you intended it to be...and a good one....simple and thematic as all C&C special rules should be.

I'm one of the first defenders of C&C:A's simple elegance against rule "fixes" but I am also aware of its limitations. For all its subtle and well balanced interactions, there is only so far that unit mix and terrain can go in providing the variety to simulate ancient warfare across its entire spectrum. I am a big fan of the role of simple, thematic scenario special rules in deepening historical simulation for specific armies and battles.

What Warriors represent is different across different epochs, armies and scenarios in the game, and your impetuous warriors variant would not be appropriate across all scenarios but I can see it being highly thematic in some. I don't see it representing the Galatian Warrior units in Hannibal's tightly orchestrated army but it would be highly appropriate representing German tribesmen in the the Teutoburg Forest, the Cimbri at Arausio or the Britons at the Medway.

I'd certainly be interested to hear how it plays out.

Brent.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin S
United Kingdom
Bedfordshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
goshublue wrote:
This variant was posted as a simulation of impetuous warriors, not the impetus of warriors. Very different meaning and not actually covered by the rules as they stand.

I think this looks very interesting, Martin, and I saw your posting not as a suggested rules fix but as the variant I'm sure you intended it to be...and a good one....simple and thematic as all C&C special rules should be.


At last. Thank you.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin S
United Kingdom
Bedfordshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
goshublue wrote:
What Warriors represent is different across different epochs, armies and scenarios in the game, and your impetuous warriors variant would not be appropriate across all scenarios but I can see it being highly thematic in some. I don't see it representing the Galatian Warrior units in Hannibal's tightly orchestrated army but it would be highly appropriate representing German tribesmen in the the Teutoburg Forest, the Cimbri at Arausio or the Britons at the Medway.

I'd certainly be interested to hear how it plays out.

Brent.


I see and agree with your point. Allowing a player the choice to prevent Warriors breaking through units and into trouble would be strange in some historical circumstances, though not impossible e.g. the influence of a strong leader or chief. Perhaps a scenario-specific House Rule is what I'm proposing and I'll give it a try in scenarios with Germanic-based Warrior-heavy armies.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Reeve
Switzerland
St-Légier
Vaud
flag msg tools
badge
Looking for a game session in Switzerland? Send me a pm!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
goshublue wrote:
This variant was posted as a simulation of impetuous warriors, not the impetus of warriors. Very different meaning and not actually covered by the rules as they stand.
So it is not a house rule (which by definition would be generic) but a special rule, that one could attach to a precise historical situation?
So why does the OP speak of a house rule?
There is no problem with tweaking rules for a specific battle.

Now, let's see the OP
Achtung_Panzer10 wrote:
I don't normally adopt House Rules but I wondered whether Warriors should be seen as impetuous (as they are in DBA/DBM wargaming) and always Momentum Advance and battle if they clear their first hex of a unit / leader rather than be given the choice?

Has ayone tried the House Rule: "A full strength Warrior unit must Momentum Advance if after melee it clears the first hex of the enemy unit / leader"?
This is about a generic rule to depict Warriors better, not a rule about making Warriors impetuous in a specific case.
The poster equates the mechanics with the generic DBA/DBM system.
So, for the least, the OP is misleading if it does not try to change the rule in a general way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin S
United Kingdom
Bedfordshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Isn't that the point of a discussion? I floated an idea and thanks to informed contributions, have adapted it to my own taste.

Thanks all
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todd Rewoldt
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Achtung_Panzer10 wrote:


Has ayone tried the House Rule: "A full strength Warrior unit must Momentum Advance if after melee it clears the first hex of the enemy unit / leader"?


While I don't adopt this as an across the board rule - for my play, in action, it might as well be so Once I've committed the warriors to combat, they battle at every opportunity until either the path has been cleared or they've fallen or been repelled - thank goodness for that two hex retreat!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Reeve
Switzerland
St-Légier
Vaud
flag msg tools
badge
Looking for a game session in Switzerland? Send me a pm!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sduke wrote:
Haha, actualy you seem a little stressed dude! Lighten up, Francis!
Before you played cops on this thread, there was no stress.
Afterwards, not that much more.
Just a slight irritation with people who cannot cope with diverging opinions being expressed.
But don't worry: your neurological diagnosis abilities are quite weak and real life actually generates much more stress than your posts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Briggs
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve...Robin...
Come on guys. Let's not go that route. We've had a good discussion and oddly enough, everyone appears to agree to a certain extent. How about leaving this with a common understanding of affection for this game.

Martin...
Good suggestion in your original post. Any subject that can garner twenty or more replies is good. If I ever design a scenario that needs "Berserkers" I think your suggestion would be perfect.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Duke
United States
Georgetown
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ROFL, Robin's cracking me up!

It's part of the fun of the internet. I doubt this stuff would be said face to face.

All good here, Dave. As you say, our common appreciation for the game is bigger than any petty differences of opinion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Reeve
Switzerland
St-Légier
Vaud
flag msg tools
badge
Looking for a game session in Switzerland? Send me a pm!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
At least I am conscious of my moronic state.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Briggs
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So it's a duel. Keyboards at fifty paces.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Read the rulebook, plan for all contingencies, and…read the rulebook again.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Achtung_Panzer10 wrote:
goshublue wrote:
This variant was posted as a simulation of impetuous warriors, not the impetus of warriors. Very different meaning and not actually covered by the rules as they stand.

I think this looks very interesting, Martin, and I saw your posting not as a suggested rules fix but as the variant I'm sure you intended it to be...and a good one....simple and thematic as all C&C special rules should be.


At last. Thank you.


I for one would like to read about the imeptuous warriors first referred to!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.