studiotomahawk.freeforums.org

Yep the levy ablative armour shield strung out over the whole table and the inevitable mid ford clash in the river scenario are the two times that spring to mind

Ragnar,
I have yet to come across a set of rules that proudly announce ‘these rules are to be taken deadly seriously’. It goes without saying that SAGA should be fun, light hearted and played with friends. Fortunately SAGA meets all of these requirements extremely well. However, I think it is only human nature that players will seek the clearest answers to their questions; even SAGA players. To take an overly relaxed and laid back approach to the minor detail of base sizes only creates trouble, (especially from Normans and Welshmen). If the rules say VS range; how generous can we be? 51mm, 52mm? Why not 60mm? It’s all very well to claim that people should play in a friendly manner but I can assure you that when I have my enemy Warlord at my mercy even my best of best friends will start to examine exactly how close my Warriors are!

Your Tournament Rules Pack is a great idea – I hope these will be free as a download!!!

As a loyal Viking you may wish to consider the following.

I like the simple idea of defining the word ‘within’ to mean ‘at or less than’. Good thinking pyruse, but there could possibly still be some doubt.

I have also come up with a solution to the problem after spending a few hours moving coins of various sizes around my table.

Page 25, second paragraph, second bullet point reads….
• within VS of an enemy model in base to base contact with another model of its own unit.
My solution is this; ADD after….its own unit….
,or, in base to base contact with another model of its own unit that itself is in base to base contact with an enemy model.

I believe this amendment would cut out the need to micro measure in almost all circumstances.

Hope this helps and good luck with the Tournament rules.

Looking at this logically I can see two ranks of infantry getting blows in but how would a second rank of cavalry be able to actually reach the combat (even if they were armed with spears/lances)? You are talking about the length of one and a half horses. Likewise a third rank of infantry armed with swords and axes would not be able to reach the combat (at least not without putting their own comrades in danger...).

Mick

Mick A wrote:Looking at this logically I can see two ranks of infantry getting blows in but how would a second rank of cavalry be able to actually reach the combat (even if they were armed with spears/lances)? You are talking about the length of one and a half horses.
Mick

Easy! you have to understand reality, not static miniature positions. All cavalry combat is while MOVING. So cavalry fighting in two ranks is a simulation of the riders slashing/stabbing/throwing while riding by, and then his comrade comes in right behind him. If you stop moving while fighting mounted, you are worse of then being on foot. Because they are just going to attack the horse if standing still, which either makes it throw the rider off or worse, falls over with the rider on top. Either way you are easy prey for foot troops.

When you see a fast moving knight charging at you, then you are more focused on protecting yourself from that lightning fast attack from above, as the rider he higher then you.
Its also why disciplined trained footmen with polearms quite easily withstand cavalry charges, they can hold here line and have trained in just attacking the horse when it comes near and stops. While foot troops which breaks ranks, don't have a chance as the knights can ride through them, hacking as they go.

Actually that you have to break away after combat and that cavalry can get support from "ranks", are one of the best simulation of cavalry compared to most games.
Warhammer being some of the worst!

I agree cavalry were devastating against broken rank troops, but a cavalry attack against a good shieldwall wouldn't work if you tried riding past to allow all the unit to attack as you would have been massacred due to the amount of hacks, stabs and slashes coming from the shieldwall troops compared to the amount of hits the cavalry could make, most of which, as you said Bergh, would be targeted at the horses not the riders (people today tend to be think that it was always 'man to man' combat and the horses were left unharmed possibly due to films and tv where this is so...).

In reality, with battles the size of a typical Saga game, the cavalry would either flow around either side of the unit striking as they past (possibly a legal move in Saga, as long as each member of the cavalry unit is within vs of another which will allow each figure to hit...) or failing that, try and punch through the shieldwall and carry on past the unit.

Mick

All of which is true in big battles where hundreds of people are fighting, this is a skirmish game however and eight blokes do not make a terribly good sheildwall.

aldramelech wrote:All of which is true in big battles where hundreds of people are fighting, this is a skirmish game however and eight blokes do not make a terribly good sheildwall.

As I said in the second part of my post...

Mick

To be honest the melee on the tabletop just represents an area of activity where everything would be muddled up. Same when people say its strange to take off casualties from figures not counting to melee dice - it just means that casualties are causing gaps and the others are feeding in.

Everything on the tabletop is really an abstraction anyway.

Im personaly happy that the creator of the game, can see the weakness of free basing size, when even the creator of the game can see there can be a problem, why can't supposed powergamers not?

Actually I Think the "support within VS" is a hard rule to enforce. Because it can be quite hard to measure in reality, in a tight mass of models, who can really measure 2"/5cm correctly?
also remember that there are a limit on how many can support, then you have to look count models and dedicate who helps who, this can ruin the fast flow of the game!

In a future version of the rules I would suggest that the "support within VS" should removed, and replaced with:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infantry in base contact with the enemy, can get support from upto two ranks or bases, upto a maximum of two model for each model in contact with the enemy.
Cavalry in base contact with the enemy, can get support from one rank or base, upto a maximum of two model for each model in contact with the enemy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We don't generally have to measure VS. All our models are based on 25mm bases and when touching, automatically show you the measurements and which models can fight. Just look at each model as a 1" ruler. I do like your idea of supporting models though, but will mean a lot less models ganging up on single models though, especially against warlords.