advanced rules 2015???

hi guys.

well another year has come and gone, so its time to get a new "advanced rules" set.

any thoughts on what we should suggest to Lorenzo?

i have always viewed the advanced rules as a sort of pre impetus 2.0 trial document. everything in the 2014 set was okay, no nasty surprises there.

all the best

After playing FOG for several years I have terrain pieces larger than the maximum allowed for Impetus. Possibly it's the same with many gamers.

So to add more compatibility why not consider larger pieces, say, between 25U and 40-50U as 2 terrain pieces?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

excellent point.

in all the tournaments i played we used the advanced rules. ie only three pieces of terrain.

but by the main rule set 3.2 they "should" be approx 25U 50cm long in oval shape...which equate to about 12cm square?? most pieces i have seen are much bigger, usually two base widths by two base depths..24cm by 12cm.

could be a good idea to state particular sizes in the amendments

I agree, something I was thinking about.
We can develop the idea in this post.

I've often thought that the terrain pieces are too small in Impetus, especially in the 15mm game. 25mm sizes are not too bad, at least when played on a 6' x 4' table. Definately in favour of larger terrain pieces in 15mm.

TD

well in 15mm you can place many of them

I suppose we are talking about tournament or tournament-like games. Otherwise, you can get whatever the players agree, e.g. by placing multiple 'official' sized terrain pieces together.

I agree with Aurelius that the existing rules work OK for 25/28 mm games at 300/350 points. 3 terrain pieces seems a reasonable number - I know it was reduced from 4 a few years ago. We might want to consider an increase in minimum size; 5U as the minimum dimension is pretty small, and people with cavalry armies can place 3 tiny pieces at corners of the table to get virtually an open plain (the opponent only being able to move or remove one).

I haven't played enough 15mm games to have a strong opinion for that scale, but the existing rules would seem to encourage small 'outcrops' of terrain scattered about the table. Has anyone tried doubling the sizes of the terrain pieces (so max 50U) and then using the 28mm placement rules (place up to 3 etc.)? If large terrain pieces are going to be allowed, then there has to be some adjustment in the opponent's 'move/remove' options as well.

By the way, frazer, the 25U distance in rule 3.2 is a 'diameter' so the transverse 'diameter' could be a bit less to get the 'rough oval'. of something approaching 600 square U. Equally, the minimum size is only a bit bigger than 25 square U (5U x a bit more than 5U). Maybe that range is too great?

RogerC

hmmm

my maths must have been off when i thinking of sizes. too many U's and CM's

if a terrain pieces was about two base width wide, and one base width depth, plus a bit then that should be about right.

so for 28mm 24cm by 12cm. call it 30cm by 15cm

for 15mm 16cm by 8cm, call it 20cm by 10cm.

these sizes should be big enough for ambushes, but small enough not to dominate the table.

So, to summarize, just a small adjustement in size?

I hope those are minimum sizes Frazer is proposing, otherwise they are smaller than we have now.

TD

better to keep the concept of "diameter" anyway

I think the size of terrain pieces is fine except the minimum size should be larger to avoid the situation mentioned with Cav Armies by RogerC above.

Terrain should also not be restricted to being oval in shape (or rectangular in the case of BUA or enclosed fields) but can be irregular shapes that are no larger in diameter than whatever we agree is the maximum size.

Dennis

I have prepared this. Terrain should fit in it, between the 2 rectangles.

That's good. But is there any restriction as to the shape of the terrain?

Dennis

I think that to fit between the 2 reclangles you have some limit. The rules anyway state that you cannot create strange shapes, but it is hard to say what is strange. Umpires at tournaments have the last word.

With those limits a round terrain will have a radius between 15 and 20cm in 15mm (or 20 and 25 in 25mm). The same for the sides of a square piece.

Insn't that too tight?

suggestions on how to adjust sizes?

Use the diagrams and give the min / max sizes you want. As long as the terrain fits inside the borders of the correct size for the scale you are using, then the terrain piece is legal. No need to use the word diameter. As long as the shape is not an unrealistic natural terrain shape such as a triangular shaped forest or square lake or pencil thin ridgeline then that should be fine (umpire in a tournament to have the final say).

Scale sizes shown in the diagram seem fine.

Change scale size on diagram to 28mm where you have 25mm.

Dennis

In 15mm for example, you could:

a)increase the outer rectangle (and allowing terrain a bit larger)
30x25cm and 15x10

b)decrease the inner rectangle (and allowing terrain a bit smaller)
25x20cm and 10x5

c)squares instead of rectangles
25x25 and 15x15

In all the abose cases the variation in radius I mentioned before would go from 5cm to 10cm.

probably squares instead of rectangles can work

Rectangles would make it closer to oval in shape if that's what you were after.

I don't think making smaller pieces of terrain works too well.

Dennis

well you can still form rectangles if the template is a square.
I won't change my items anyway

Whatever shape you like works fine, It's just that if you wanted mainly oval shapes, then if you want to make a max sized terrain piece, it will force you to have a more oval shape to fit inside a rectangle.

Dennis

Another proposal for version 2 is to limit the damage from “S” troops to a maximum of 1 damage.

Those troops have a low probability of hitting due to a VBU of 2. But once they hit they can achieve massive damage. Being smaller in numbers than a normal unit and fighting in a dispersed manner I would expect them to cause low casualties.