Warriors and Pike

Anything else related to the TRIUMPH! rules
User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Warriors and Pike

Postby David Kuijt » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:56 pm

Kontos wrote:If you want me to stop this, GET ME LOCAL OPPONENTS TO PLAY!!! :geek:


Nothing is easier. Move to Damascus.
DK

User avatar
Kontos
Squire
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:26 pm

Re: Warriors and Pike

Postby Kontos » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:11 pm

David Kuijt wrote:
Kontos wrote:If you want me to stop this, GET ME LOCAL OPPONENTS TO PLAY!!! :geek:


Nothing is easier. Move to Damascus.


Do I get an elephant? A Chariot? :)

User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Warriors and Pike

Postby David Kuijt » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:04 pm

Kontos wrote:Do I get an elephant? A Chariot? :)


Sure. You move to Damascus, I'll give you an Elephant.

And to be fair to other readers, that offer goes for anyone.

While supplies last -- supplies of elephants may be limited. May not be combined with other promotions. Opinions expressed here may not be the views of the management. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.
DK

User avatar
Kontos
Squire
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:26 pm

Re: Warriors and Pike

Postby Kontos » Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:42 pm

David Kuijt wrote:
Kontos wrote:Do I get an elephant? A Chariot? :)


Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.


Ain't that the truth. :D

paulgpotter
Levy
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:53 am

Re: Warriors and Pike

Postby paulgpotter » Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:27 pm

It appears in the most updated rules that warriors have lost the plus 2 for rear support. How sad. -Paul

User avatar
David Schlanger
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Warriors and Pike

Postby David Schlanger » Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:59 pm

paulgpotter wrote:It appears in the most updated rules that warriors have lost the plus 2 for rear support. How sad. -Paul


Hey Paul - yes, they now only have +1 for rear support. We made this change for a variety of reasons. That said, Warriors are still under close scrutiny and they may need further modification to get them where we want them to be.

DS

User avatar
Bill Hupp
Squire
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:55 pm
Location: Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Warriors and Pike

Postby Bill Hupp » Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:31 pm

Is there a battle card for first attack under consideration? +1? It can be a bit fiddle but it might encourage mass attack tactics. And counter tactics from the opponents.

Bill
Bill Hupp
Thistle & Rose Miniatures
I play lots of games and I like Triumph!

User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Warriors and Pike

Postby David Kuijt » Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:48 pm

Bill Hupp wrote:Is there a battle card for first attack under consideration? +1? It can be a bit fiddle but it might encourage mass attack tactics. And counter tactics from the opponents.

Bill


Nope. There are reasons why that is more focused towards a more tactical (skirmish or grand skirmish) game; in a game with turns that are large fractions of an hour every turn includes attacks, counterattacks, lulls in combat, recovery, attacking again, and so on.
DK

User avatar
Bill Hupp
Squire
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:55 pm
Location: Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Warriors and Pike

Postby Bill Hupp » Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:17 am

Ok, but I was thinking of a card played at the time of the first attack of warriors, how many ever stands that might be. After that turn no bonus. So an Army level bonus. Not a skirmish level idea but reflecting army organization and preparation of a deep formation.

And not something every warrior army would do.

Bill
Bill Hupp
Thistle & Rose Miniatures
I play lots of games and I like Triumph!

User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Warriors and Pike

Postby David Kuijt » Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:48 pm

Bill Hupp wrote:Ok, but I was thinking of a card played at the time of the first attack of warriors, how many ever stands that might be. After that turn no bonus. So an Army level bonus. Not a skirmish level idea but reflecting army organization and preparation of a deep formation.


It's been discussed before (here on this forum) in the guise of "charge bonus". Still a tactical rule. Army organization and the preparation of a deep formation is already rewarded in the rules -- a player who can organize his army and create an attack across the front of the enemy formation with his matchups and back-rank support for his warriors and everything organized well already has advantages. There isn't any pressing need to create special rules to give players that advantage separately or additionally.

Bill Hupp wrote:And not something every warrior army would do.


I'd like to single out the above comment, not to harsh on you, Bill, but to put it in the mind of people reading who suggest battle cards, and to clarify the complexities involved. It's easy enough to say "not every X army gets this" but very very difficult to make clear how to decide what armies receive a particular benefit, and what armies do not. For example, we have sometimes discussed the possibility of a "group retreat" ability (battle card) that some Horsebow armies might receive (Mongols, for one).

Almost every single Horsebow army could get it. Almost every single Horsebow army is illiterate (has no first-hand accounts written by the nomad side). Almost every single Horsebow army used tactics that confused and terrified their civilized opponents. So how would we decide if the Avars should get it? Or the Huns? Or the Pechenegs? Or the Seljuqs? Or the Skythians, Parthians, Massagetae, Alans, Georgians, Cumans, Xiongnu, Xixia, Tibet, and fifty others?

It's usually possible to determine if an army should get a Fortified Camp battle-card. But other stuff, much more difficult. And battle cards like you suggest -- I would be unsure even how to begin deciding who should get your "First Attack" card, and who should not.
DK


Return to “General Rules Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest