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.

http://privateerpress.com/community/privateer-insider/insider-11-2-2012

http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?127509-Sr-2013-spoiler

The changes known so far are:

--Fewer scenarios, back to 12 of them.

--Radials are gone, to the joy of TO's who had to rearrange scenery to keep deployment zones clear.

--Reinforcements and flanking are now variants that a TO can choose to add to all games, rather than being tied to specific scenarios.

So far, it seems a good bit simpler and less gimmicky than 2012. Hopefully, fewer maps that look like the cockpit readout of a space fighter.

I rather liked radial scenarios. They stopped both sides calculating by adding up deployment zone, full run distance and working out threat ranges from that. But I can totally see the major problem with terrain in deployment zones.

As for the move of flank scenarios to being a variant, I'll miss certain ones (a flag too far was a favourite of mine) but I see the reasons. Don't agree with it though.

I suppose part of the reason I liked the radial and flank scenarios is that I went through the steamroller pack and worked out what, at a minimum, I needed to do to stop the other player from winning. Then wrote that on my print out under the title "how not to lose". Because of this I had a great advantage over my opponents, knowing where I had to be and where they had to get to.

As an example, A Flag Too Far. To stop losing via scenario all you have to do is contest the centre left flag. No other flag is as important. The latest tournament I played in had this scenario and my opponent sent his flanking force to his secondary flag before he had full control over his primary one. Thus he was effectively playing 50pts vs my 60 as I left his Iron Gang Pikemen alone.

Why is terrain in the deployment zone a big deal? I've heard this before, but I never understood it.

Say you have a four round tournament. You play one radial but the terrain has been set up with normal deployment in mind so 18" from your corner a wood has been placed, or a building, or a piece of shallow water. This wouldn't affect normal deployment as it's outside AD of the second player, but now you are forced out to the sides of the radial deployment zone. This will delay you from getting to the battle and give a very slight advantage to your opponent.

It is a minor issue and easily solved on one table, but with 8, 16 or even 32 tables the TO is pushed for time.

Now say the TO is organised and doesn't place terrain in any of the deployment zones this leaves a nice clear area on each players right to move non-pathfinder troops. Not the best thing as terrain should always have an effect on the battle, else what's the point of it.

Another change I know is coming is that Casters can Control a zone/flag, but they cant Contest it. It stops that problem where all they have left is a camping caster sitting in a zone and you can't kill it.