Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

HawaiiMatt wrote:Oh, add another to the list.
Half victory points for any unit that's lost half of it's start wounds, or that is fleeing at the end of the game.

-Matt

That change alone would greatly improve the game.

Fleeing for any reason? I don't want to see Terror being so Terrifying again.

And I was just reading some Space Marines fluffery about how some commander X knew that knowing when to give ground was an important concept as knowing when to press on. And that's the Superheroes of Man, or whatever. Fleeing as a charge reaction isn't a victory. World War I taught us that.

DukeRustfield wrote:And I was just reading some Space Marines fluffery about how some commander X knew that knowing when to give ground was an important concept as knowing when to press on. And that's the Superheroes of Man, or whatever. Fleeing as a charge reaction isn't a victory.

It is if the fleeing unit is unable to recover and regain discipline before the battle has ended.

World War I taught us that.

WWI (or more specifically the Western Front) was an attritional war, fought between two forces with professional standards of discipline at the early ages of industrialisation. As such, the means to victory was not about routing the enemy from the field of battle.

Unlike the medieval to renaissance combat roughly simulated by WHFB, where routing the enemy from the field was the primary objective of combat. An overwhelming number of battles were won when one side broke from combat.

Fleeing FROM THE BATTLEFIELD is indeed a loss. But he said fleeing. And the armies here, while in a gross standpoint might be medieval, are vastly more organized than any units WWI or WWII or modern Afganistan ever fielded, because they are controlled by the massive, unyielding hand of a sky diety who paints them and controls the very dice of their fates.

Falling back 20 feet isn't destruction. It just might have been a bad roll or it might have been strategic purposes. OR it might have been caused by losing the fight, but then presumably you would have also inflicted some injuries which could come under the half-points for losing half-wounds.

I don't see what it adds and I see it making some armies and abilities much more powerful so that in the last phases you try and BOO! your way to victory. Worse still, it will make everyone further rely on the steadfasters and deathstars.

Half points tends to weaken deathstars. If you try, you can kill half a death star. Half points limits the VP denial aspect.

As for fleeing at the end of the game, I've had games where I've won, because on my opponents last turn of the game, I just flee every charge.
It doesn't feel right that I've got 7 fleeing units, he's got 4 healthy units, and I just scored a massacre.

-Matt


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, now that I think about it, I think this would be better.
Half points for any unit fleeing, but still on the table.
Half points for any unit below half strength.
Combined, you get full points for a unit fleeing that is below half strength.

-Matt

Half points weakens deathstars, yes.

Fleeing weakens everyone without Terror, poor leadership, don't have LD abilities/spells, and buffs steadfast.

I've had games where I've won, because on my opponents last turn of the game, I just flee every charge.
It doesn't feel right that I've got 7 fleeing units, he's got 4 healthy units, and I just scored a massacre.

I'm sure everyone has situations where stuff worked out poorly. You could have just have easily lost 7 completely healthy units to a few pitiful units because you rolled poorly on your flees. I'm sure some people have.

But that's combined arms for you. War of attrition. It's how insurgencies are fought. Hell, it was the whole American Revolution. You shouldn't have to blunder into the enemy just because they charged you.

It's already extremely dangerous to flee, it shouldn't be disasterous--and shouldn't be completely different just because it happens on turn 5 instead of 2. It IS point denial, but unlike deathstars, pretty much everyone has simple means of dealing with it (roll 2D6 and/or use another unit), and there's a massive gamble associated with it. If you've taken out all his ranged and other units and spellcasters and can consistently roll a higher 2D6, then that would be a legitimate strategy in a real fight. But I'd say it's pretty rare and not something that needs "fixing."

DukeRustfield wrote:Fleeing FROM THE BATTLEFIELD is indeed a loss. But he said fleeing.

The edge of the board is an arbitrary point we have because our dining rooms don't have infinite space and therefore must end somewhere.

Just like the turn sequence is an arbitrary point because we don't have infinite time to complete a game, and therefore it must end sometime. Having a game reach that point, with a large number of units fleeing, and that situation not being reflected in the rules is a definite weakness.

And the armies here, while in a gross standpoint might be medieval, are vastly more organized than any units WWI or WWII or modern Afganistan ever fielded, because they are controlled by the massive, unyielding hand of a sky diety who paints them and controls the very dice of their fates.

None of that means a thing compared the simple and plain fact that the strategic battle reflects the fight until you break conditions of medieval warfare, in which the overwhelming majority of battles were won by routing the opposition.

I don't see what it adds and I see it making some armies and abilities much more powerful so that in the last phases you try and BOO! your way to victory. Worse still, it will make everyone further rely on the steadfasters and deathstars.

You do know units that were fleeing when the game ended counting as full victory points was a standard of the game for early editions, yeah?

They took it out because they wanted to give people a reason to focus on running down enemy units (which was another thing to make the game reflect medieval combat), which was good, but swung too far the other way. Instead, why not have a balance point halfway, where you get half points if the unit is fleeing when the game ends?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:But that's combined arms for you. War of attrition. It's how insurgencies are fought. Hell, it was the whole American Revolution. You shouldn't have to blunder into the enemy just because they charged you.

First up, the role of minutemen and other guerilla factions in the American Revolution has been vastly overstated. Ultimately the American Revolution was won because Revolutionary forces beat the British in open field and siege warfare.

Second up, why do you keep talking about combat environments that have nothing to do with the environment Warhammer is taking a fantastical variant of?

It's already extremely dangerous to flee, it shouldn't be disasterous--and shouldn't be completely different just because it happens on turn 5 instead of 2.

If a unit flees in the early rounds of fighting, recovers and rejoins the fray, that is a wholly different thing to a unit that is fleeing and not under control when the battle concludes.

The edge of the board is an arbitrary point we have because our dining rooms don't have infinite space and therefore must end somewhere.

That's like saying wounds are an arbitrary thing. We know the edge of the board is death and to flee off it is your destruction. The middle of the board is not. You take a risk placing your units where they can flee off the board, usually it's a safer and harder to reach.

Just like the turn sequence is an arbitrary point because we don't have infinite time to complete a game, and therefore it must end sometime. Having a game reach that point, with a large number of units fleeing, and that situation not being reflected in the rules is a definite weakness.

Okay, if it's arbitrary, why aren't you making it that if you flee at any point, you die?

None of that means a thing compared the simple and plain fact that the strategic battle reflects the fight until you break conditions of medieval warfare, in which the overwhelming majority of battles were won by routing the opposition.

WHFB isn't medieval. It's a mixed-bag fantasy. Tanks and Daemons and charriots and mortars do not fit into one category. Not to mention spells. The way THIS game is won is how it is defined in the book. The way classic roller derby games were decided has as much bearing as the siege of whatever in 1308. In fact if you were to try and recreate some famous medieval battles using WHFB, you'd totally fail, because the rules are so different. OH, you got a frilly pink banner nearby? Well that changes everything. It's called Warhammer FANTASY Battles, not Medieval Total War.

You do know units that were fleeing when the game ended counting as full victory points was a standard of the game for early editions, yeah?

They took it out because they wanted to give people a reason to focus on running down enemy units (which was another thing to make the game reflect medieval combat),

You may think it was trying to make the game medieval. I think it's for the reasons I stated. Because it's absolutely crushing to groups that regularly run, or are less maneuverable. And greatly favors the terror-mongers and unbreakables of the game.

First up, the role of minutemen and other guerilla factions in the American Revolution has been vastly overstated. Ultimately the American Revolution was won because Revolutionary forces beat the British in open field and siege warfare.

Second up, why do you keep talking about combat environments that have nothing to do with the environment Warhammer is taking a fantastical variant of?

The american revolution was "won' because the English people got tired of supporting it. We basically won 2 battles and lost every single other one. AND ZOMG FLED FROM THE FIELD NEARLY EVERY TIME!1111

The American Revolution can easily be fielded in Empire. It has as little relevence as the medieval nonsense you're talking about.

If a unit flees in the early rounds of fighting, recovers and rejoins the fray, that is a wholly different thing to a unit that is fleeing and not under control when the battle concludes.

No, it's not. Because you already stated it's an arbitrary time point. They are exactly identical, you're just choosing to place (vast) significance on one and not the others.

DukeRustfield wrote:That's like saying wounds are an arbitrary thing. We know the edge of the board is death and to flee off it is your destruction. The middle of the board is not. You take a risk placing your units where they can flee off the board, usually it's a safer and harder to reach.

And when you choose to flee when it's near the end of the game, you're taking the same risk.

Okay, if it's arbitrary, why aren't you making it that if you flee at any point, you die?

I was making the point that the edge of the board was exactly like the end of the game, an arbitrary point.

WHFB isn't medieval. It's a mixed-bag fantasy.

Obviously there's a wide variety of unit types and tech levels spread across the game. But to say that because there's different unit types, then we cannot examine what type of combat the mechanics simulate is complete nonsense.

The basic mechanics of combat simulate medieval combat. Or, well bronze age combat or really anything up to . That is, fight until you break combat. It does not in any way simulate the American War of Independence or any other war you've randomly chosen to mention.

This is obvious, and I really cannot fathom a reason you've chosen to pretend otherwise.

You may think it was trying to make the game medieval. I think it's for the reasons I stated.

It was stated in White Dwarf at the time, that they wanted to encourage

Because it's absolutely crushing to groups that regularly run

They are still free to run. They should still run, in many situations. They just shouldn't be running when it's near the end of the game. Because when the sun sets (or whatever) and half your army is in disorganised flight, you are not dominating the field.

The american revolution was "won' because the English people got tired of supporting it. We basically won 2 battles and lost every single other one. AND ZOMG FLED FROM THE FIELD NEARLY EVERY TIME!1111

Yes, and when your army fled the field, those battles were lost.

No, it's not. Because you already stated it's an arbitrary time point. They are exactly identical, you're just choosing to place (vast) significance on one and not the others.

I'm not placing vast significance on that point. I'm arguing for half victory points.

Compare it to the edge of the board, which if you take a second to think about does not actually represent the edge of the world, but we consider a unit to have run that far to be not coming back. Similarly, it just plain makes sense that when the sun sets on the battlefield (or whatever prompts the end of the game) we look at all the units fleeing, and we don't assume all of them are going to rally before they reach the board's edge, or before the enemy runs them down.

So, rather than place (vast) significance on the chance of rallying, we should take a halfway point and award half victory points for units that are fleeing when the game ends.

Yes, and when your army fled the field, those battles were lost.

And had no effect whatsoever. The rebels who retreated didn't all magically die. If anything it made things even worse for the red coats who had to keep after them (in a non pell mell fashion) and expend even more resources. It was basically 5 straight years of retreating. So while those battles may have been lost in the sense one side was running like hell, it didn't do anything. If it was like you were proposing, the Brits would have won around 1776. Which, obviously didn't happen, cuz there's barely any good tea here.

So, rather than place (vast) significance on the chance of rallying, we should take a halfway point and award half victory points for units that are fleeing when the game ends.

The vast siginificance on rallying is what exists now. It is there every turn. Instead of, WOOPS this is turn 6 instead of turn 3, everything changes now. The exact same move I did 10 mins ago now kills half my men.

Because when the sun sets (or whatever) and half your army is in disorganised flight, you are not dominating the field.

If the objective is control points, that's something else, and forcing them to retreat will obviously be advantageous on points. The objective is to kill the enemy, not dominate the field. If you haven't killed the enemy, you haven't killed them. To return to your medieval analogy, armies fight to kill each other. When they faced-off in big open fields, it wasn't to claim the big open field, it was to kill the enemies...and then go someplace nicer. It's just grass (and dead bodies) anyway.

SkaerKrow wrote:Moving Fleeing Units – If a fleeing unit would move into contact with a non-fleeing/unengaged enemy unit consisting of five or more models or any number of Monsters then the fleeing unit is immediately destroyed. When fleeing through smaller enemy units, the fleeing unit makes a Dangerous Terrain tests instead.

Sweet back to the days of 35 pts worth of skinks killing anything that dares flee, just by using their speed to get in the rear.

DukeRustfield wrote:And had no effect whatsoever. The rebels who retreated didn't all magically die. If anything it made things even worse for the red coats who had to keep after them (in a non pell mell fashion) and expend even more resources. It was basically 5 straight years of retreating. So while those battles may have been lost in the sense one side was running like hell, it didn't do anything. If it was like you were proposing, the Brits would have won around 1776. Which, obviously didn't happen, cuz there's barely any good tea here.

Being routed from the field makes it very hard to regain order, and runs the risk that order will never be regained. Supplies are lost, the ability to manouvre is damaged or lost entirely until order can be regained. Troops are captured, or go AWOL.

Washington's greatest achievement was in preventing his army from simply disappearing from underneath him. Meanwhile the British lost not because they kept routing the British from the field, but because they couldn't make any of those tactical victories amount to a sufficient strategic victory, meanwhile they had the cost of running an army a very long way from home.

The vast siginificance on rallying is what exists now. It is there every turn. Instead of, WOOPS this is turn 6 instead of turn 3, everything changes now. The exact same move I did 10 mins ago now kills half my men.

It doesn't kill half your men. It gives half victory points to the enemy in recognition of the fact that the fate of these troops is unknown, they might route from the field or be run down by the enemy.

Troops fleeing in the third turn are exposed to those risks, why should fleeing in the last turn not suffer any penalty?

The objective is to kill the enemy, not dominate the field. If you haven't killed the enemy, you haven't killed them. To return to your medieval analogy, armies fight to kill each other.

Total war is a fairly modern concept, actually. The intent was actually to route the enemy from the field, because it was generally assumed that'd be that, the dominant army would be proven.

You need to go to Napoleon's capture of Moscow, and the Russian decision to burn the city instead of negotiating terms to find the origins of total war.

Being routed from the field makes it very hard to regain order, and runs the risk that order will never be regained. Supplies are lost, the ability to manouvre is damaged or lost entirely until order can be regained. Troops are captured, or go AWOL.

Meanwhile the British lost not because they kept routing the British from the field, but because they couldn't make any of those tactical victories amount to a sufficient strategic victory, meanwhile they had the cost of running an army a very long way from home.

It's extremely easy to regain order. Because 99% of the time, you're in a foreign land and it's the only thing you can do. And if you desert you'll be killed. And if you're captured you'll be killed or imprisoned. And you have no means of transport, food, or anything. And you're generally a soldier who is trained. Even street gangs that get beat up will simply get back together tomorrow. If people believe in something enough to fight (like because they're in an army) it's a damn cohesive group.

Right, because they didn't actually KILL many people in those conflicts. If you look at the casualties, they were woefully low (owing to the innefficiencies of combat at the time). Out of tens of thousands of troops you end up with like 100 dead. You can do that for years. And we did. So, as pointed out, if you don't actually destroy the enemy, nothing really happens. Taking the farm you fought on has no effect whatsoever.

The intent was actually to route the enemy from the field, because it was generally assumed that'd be that, the dominant army would be proven

No, not whatsoever. Not in any period of historical OR modern warfare. I'm reading a book now on the concept of strategic vs. tactical combat. If an army invades your land, as was the case for all human conflict up until about 1940, your only solution was to kill that army. Not push them off the battlefield. But to kill them. Because if the King or Chieftain or Marshall or whatever ordered the invasion, it's still going to happen. Historical armies were routed by being nearly decimated. Not because they got scared and fell back. They're not going to march all the way back just because they lost a hill. That didn't even happen in WWI as I said. It partially happened in WWII because you're also taking industrial and strategic points, i.e., the actual land you're fighting for has significant value. But a plain old battlefield is useless.

There are feints and retreats in WHFB, probably a lot moreso than real combat. But it's crazy to assume that a perfectly intact army that ran 20 feet is the equivalent to slaughtered.

It gives half victory points to the enemy in recognition of the fact that the fate of these troops is unknown, they might route from the field or be run down by the enemy.

Right. And they might not. And they might reform, turn around and kill the people who caused them to flee. You're assuming the worst case scenario for the unit fleeing, which doesn't happen in any other situation. Why not assume they become emboldedened by their brief brush with cowardice and any unit that forces them to flee is worth half victory points? Since we don't know what will happen. I mean you could do that from any point. Turn 1. You won the roll-off, you win.

DukeRustfield wrote:It's extremely easy to regain order. Because 99% of the time, you're in a foreign land and it's the only thing you can do.

What? Surely you'd be in a foreign land just about 50% of the time, and fighting at home just 50% of the time... By your claim, 99.5% of wars are fought where both sides are in some third nation's territory, which certainly happens, but it's very silly to claim it happens 99.5% of the time.

And if you desert you'll be killed. And if you're captured you'll be killed or imprisoned.

If the army manages to regain some kind of order. Which, again, is the thing we're questioning.

And you have no means of transport, food, or anything.

You have the exact same supply source relied on by the vast majority armies when in good order - whatever they can take off the surrounding populations. Logistics and supply chains are another fairly modern invention.

And you're generally a soldier who is trained.

Again, medieval armies, so that's a really big assumption you're making there.

If people believe in something enough to fight (like because they're in an army) it's a damn cohesive group.

Yes, because we're talking about volunteer armies where people sign up because they really believe in the cause.

Right, because they didn't actually KILL many people in those conflicts. If you look at the casualties, they were woefully low (owing to the innefficiencies of combat at the time). Out of tens of thousands of troops you end up with like 100 dead. You can do that for years. And we did.

And yet, the army that broke, despite suffering relative few casualties, rarely automatically reformed ready for another go at it. Otherwise some bright spark would have realised 'hang on, there's no point to this because these battles rarely change political situations'. No-one thought that, because being routed from the field meant a hell of a lot.

So, as pointed out, if you don't actually destroy the enemy, nothing really happens.

You can 'point it out' all you want, it remains fundamentally utter nonsense.

And if you really believed it, you'd be arguing that troops fleeing off the back of the board shouldn't count for VPs at all - after all they're still alive, and free to rejoin their army that apparently always reforms ready to fight again.

No, not whatsoever. Not in any period of historical OR modern warfare. I'm reading a book now on the concept of strategic vs. tactical combat. If an army invades your land, as was the case for all human conflict up until about 1940, your only solution was to kill that army.

This is complete and utter tosh. At the Battle of Hastings, the Saxon lost 4,000 troops, which was at absolute most about 30% of his army's starting size. Starting with an army of equivalent size and suffering only slightly fewer casualties, William was still able to push on to London, while the Saxons were not able to reform their army to challenge him again.

When you route an army from the field, you are breaking the will of the troops to fight, and you are causing the enemy general to believe he will do no better next time.

Historical armies were routed by being nearly decimated.

This is completely and utterly wrong. Look at how few troops actually died in a phalanx. The real killing started when one formation broke formation and fled, and were cut down.

Historically, armies were decimated after they were routed.

They're not going to march all the way back just because they lost a hill.

No, but they're going to be broken, disorganised, and getting hunted by an army that is still organised, and committed to killing them. Which means it is very likely they will not return to the battlefield later.

That didn't even happen in WWI as I said. It partially happened in WWII because you're also taking industrial and strategic points, i.e., the actual land you're fighting for has significant value. But a plain old battlefield is useless.

It has nothing to do with holding a piece of land, and everything to do with making the other guy run away, and the horrible number of casualties that could be inflicted subsequently.

I'm kind of surprised there's people out there who aren't aware of this, and absolutely gobsmacked that you're doing everything in your power to avoid accepting this as the simple, obvious thing that it is.

Right. And they might not. And they might reform, turn around and kill the people who caused them to flee. You're assuming the worst case scenario for the unit fleeing, which doesn't happen in any other situation.

No, I'm not. If I was, I'd argue for full VPs like the older versions of the game. Instead, I'm saying "we don't know what will happen to them, while they're not destroyed they're also not the same thing as units in perfect working order, so the middle ground is to award half VPs."

Why not assume they become emboldedened by their brief brush with cowardice and any unit that forces them to flee is worth half victory points? Since we don't know what will happen. I mean you could do that from any point. Turn 1. You won the roll-off, you win.

What? You have to make assumptions, because the game has ended. We can't keep carrying on to see what will happen, else we'd just keep playing and give up on the idea of turn limits entirely.

As it is in the game right now, we assume any unit that is fleeing quickly regained disipline and nothing bad happened to them at all, and so they should be treated like any unit that ends the game in good discipline. The point is that that's an assumption, made by GW to encourage fast units to run the enemy down, and by you because it preserves some really weird idea about medieval war being absolutely to the death and nothing else.

What? Surely you'd be in a foreign land just about 50% of the time

Okay literal master. 99% of the time you're not at home. You didn't step outside your front door and join the battle. Even in your home country it likely tooks days/weeks/months to get to the fight. You run your 20 feet away from battle (assuming it's not turn 6 which is immediate destruction of course...) and you're going to walk back to your home with no food, money, transportation, as a deserter?

Look at how few troops actually died in a phalanx.

Lol. You think this is D&D? A phalanx walked up to another phalanx and they just made faces at each other, perfectly organized, no one ever falling, no spears ever penetrating, all the shields perfectly interlocked.

WIKI:
If a hoplite escaped, he would sometimes be forced to drop his cumbersome aspis, thereby disgracing himself to his friends and family (becoming a "ripsaspis", one who threw his shield). Casualties were slight compared to later battles, rarely amounting to more than 5% of the losing side, but the slain often included the most prominent citizens and generals who led from the front. Thus, the whole war could be decided by a single field battle; victory was enforced by ransoming the fallen back to the defeated, called the "Custom of the Greeks".

And to use your precious medieval example, those forces butchered each other. And no it wasn't after a route. Cuz get this, a dude carrying an axe, let alone trying to swing it, is WAY slower than a guy sprinting for his life--which the wiki quote above makes clear.

As it is in the game right now, we assume any unit that is fleeing quickly regained disipline and nothing bad happened to them at all, and so they should be treated like any unit that ends the game in good discipline. The point is that that's an assumption, made by GW to encourage fast units to run the enemy down, and by you because it preserves some really weird idea about medieval war being absolutely to the death and nothing else.

First off, no one cares about medieval except you. Second, we don't assume they regained discipline. We assume we don't know--which we don't, and which you've admitted. Even if they didn't reform, the army might not have caught them. They might have. We don't know. You're assuming they were caught.

"Victory points are, first and foremost, awarded for destroying enemy units..." -BRB

Yeah, a guy who drops his shield is faster than a guy swinging an axe. Of course, that doesn't matter if that guy who dropped his shield has another 30 of his buddies in his path in his way.

Take a look at the start of a long race. It will take a few minutes for the pack to spread out and build up speed; and that's with everyone on the same page knowing exactly when to start running. With a much more disorganized start (breaking in battle), you're going to have a slower start. I'd bet the first few ranks are going to take a beating, because the ranks behind them are blocking the retreat.


"Victory points are, first and foremost, awarded for destroying enemy units..." -BRB

Yeah, that's kind of why where talking about it in the Thread about RULES CHANGES.

-Matt

DukeRustfield wrote: Even if they didn't reform, the army might not have caught them. They might have. We don't know. You're assuming they were caught.

No he's not. As he has been saying all along, he's assuming that they MIGHT get caught and that they're not in fighting condition at the moment that the game ended. Thus, the argument goes, the player who sent the enemy unit packing should recieve half the VPs for the fleeing unit. If we assumed that they were caught, it'd be 100% of the VPs, just as sebster's pointed out once already.

"Victory points are, first and foremost, awarded for destroying enemy units..." -BRB

Bolded part does not mean exclusively. If it did there'd be no points from killing the General or BSB, and no points for capturing banners either.

DukeRustfield wrote:Okay literal master. 99% of the time you're not at home. You didn't step outside your front door and join the battle. Even in your home country it likely tooks days/weeks/months to get to the fight. You run your 20 feet away from battle (assuming it's not turn 6 which is immediate destruction of course...) and you're going to walk back to your home with no food, money, transportation, as a deserter?

You know this happened a lot, right?

Lol. You think this is D&D? A phalanx walked up to another phalanx and they just made faces at each other, perfectly organized, no one ever falling, no spears ever penetrating, all the shields perfectly interlocked.

Why are you talking about D&D? What has that got to do with anything?

Meanwhile, casualties from units fighting in phalanx were very small. Lets look for a figure for that... perhaps one from something posted from DukeRustfield on Dakka in this very thread;
"Casualties were slight compared to later battles, rarely amounting to more than 5% of the losing side"

There it is, plain as day. Very few losses were suffered in direct combat.

And to use your precious medieval example, those forces butchered each other. And no it wasn't after a route. Cuz get this, a dude carrying an axe, let alone trying to swing it,

Uh huh. Because it was about one guy running in a straight line away, and another guy trying to swing an axe into him while he sprinted after him, like some Loonie Toons short.

Please stop making things up, and either spend the time to do the reading on the subject or just accept you don't know what you're talking about. Whole strategies were built around effectively pursuing the enemy. It was a major role of light cavalry. I mean, the Wiki article you quoted, in the very sentence before the one you quoted states "Once one of the lines broke, the troops would generally flee from the field, sometimes chased by psiloi, peltasts or light cavalry."

is WAY slower than a guy sprinting for his life--which the wiki quote above makes clear.

Actually, it stated what I was trying to tell you. Very few casualties were inflicted in direct combat. Most casualties came from the subsequent chase down.

First off, no one cares about medieval except you. Second, we don't assume they regained discipline. We assume we don't know--which we don't, and which you've admitted.

The act of awarding no victory points for units fleeing at the end of the battle means we assume they regain order. If we award full VPs for the unit, we would be assuming they remain routed or are run down by the enemy.

If we accept we don't know what might have happened to them, then we would award some portion of the VPs. Perhaps, say, 50%.

"Victory points are, first and foremost, awarded for destroying enemy units..." -BRB

Yes, that's what the book says. Were this YMDC you'd have yourself a good argument. Given this is Proposed Rules, your point is quite silly.

I like skirmishers not causing panic in friendly models, but I also think that a unit that chooses FLEE! as a charge reaction shouldn't cause panic because it's a TACTICAL MANEUVER and not a OHMYGODWE'REGONNADIE! situation.

I also like the fast cav and flyers getting hit and run - makes sense.

Rest of the rules I don't like, but you hit the nail on the head for me with those two.

Nice post!

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:I like skirmishers not causing panic in friendly models, but I also think that a unit that chooses FLEE! as a charge reaction shouldn't cause panic because it's a TACTICAL MANEUVER and not a OHMYGODWE'REGONNADIE! situation.

Except there are multiple instances in the real world of feigned flight leading to armies actually being routed. It was always a risky move. Now, maybe for play balance and to encourage more imaginative strategies that should just be forgotten about, but we shouldn't pretend that the difference between a tactical bluff and OHMYGODWE'REGONNADIE was particularly clear for the troops on the field.

There are many real world instances of feigned flight being not only used, but a backbone tactic of many armies, as well.

Perhaps, when taking a panic test from a Flee! reaction by a friendly skirmisher or fast cavalry unit, friendly units may re-roll failed panic tests?