Percentage moves and order markers

Any questions relating to Beneath the Lily Banners rule system.
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:53 am

Guys,

I have stayed out of this one for a while to see where it would go.

The answer is probably what neither camp might anticipate but actually may be a rather neat solution.

ORIGINALLY:

I only intended that order markers be placed on the units which were allowed to activate in any given turn.ie 10 Units.. 50% Movement.. therefore markers on 5 units.
The BLUFF marker was intended to tempt the enemy into premature charges. ie two units which could potentially charge are facing each other. One player tempts the enemy to charge by placing(face down a marker which could be CHARGE but is in fact BLUFF). The other player thinks.. I better charge and so does. Now this may appear slightly suicidal from the Bluffer but it is very useful in tempting rash players to expose units in isolated places, go off half cocked on plans and generally mess up orderly linear warfare. It was not a central principle of the order markers only a bit of extra 'edge'

NOW, Ray, before you choke on your chips :wink: ...

Ray's idea of placing BLUFF markers on NON MOVING UNITS is actually a very good one! It would not in any way interfere with the original use of the markers but actually would in many ways be an even fairer use of the order system and categorically ensure no gameyness. I would endorse this use of the markers and any players can take this as an official AMENDMENT.
I will incorporate it into the uploaded amendments next time I review them.
Thanks to Dave, Ray and the Tyneside lads for sparking this development 8)
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
Churchill
General
General
Posts: 1519
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:49 pm

Post by Churchill » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:15 pm

Hi Barry,

Welcome back from your holidays and I hope you had good weather and a welcomed rest from work, this website and the writing of R2E.
A big thank you for clearing this up for me as it did cause some unecessary friction between myself and David O'Brien.
I suppose it's how myself and other members of my club interpreted the rules and addendum on the placing of ORDER and BLUFF markers.
I'm also pleased that you like my interpretation and indeed will incorperate this into the amendments for the rules.
I'm still pondering why you would place two markers face down as with your orgininal explaination.Wouldn't this give the game away somewhat as your enemy who realise that this unit was BLUFFING it's order, where as the placing of a single marker would keep the enemy guessing as in poker unknown until turned over.
I apologise to you David if I upset you in any way, but if Barry is going to incorperate my way of placing the ORDER/BLUFF markers then I wont be changing the way I play.My original post was in answer to Darkman's question and was in no way ment to get anyones back up.Like yourself I too have 30+ years of this hobby called "Wargaming" and futher back still remember collecting 54mm plastic Timpo medieval knights and archers as a child sharing them with my brother and lining them up on opposite sides of the room and then flicking a marble at them and the last one standing was the winner......oh happy days.

Kind Regards..........Ray.

Image
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:13 am

Some misinterpretation there Ray. Any unit would only ever get ONE marker...
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
sharnydubs
Colonel
Colonel
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:00 am
Location: Stonehaven, Scotland

Post by sharnydubs » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:16 am

Barry , I think I actually played Ray's amendment / interpretation aginst you in our Malplaquet game the other month. I certainly didn't count the blank / defend markers as part of my movement allocation each turn. OK I was an inspirartion leader that game but there were times when I didn't roll 100%.

Good solution to the rule interpretation.
Peter

"The only winner in the War of 1812 was Tchaikovsky"
User avatar
obriendavid
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by obriendavid » Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:23 am

Churchill wrote: I apologise to you David if I upset you in any way, but if Barry is going to incorperate my way of placing the ORDER/BLUFF markers then I wont be changing the way I play.
Ray, there was no need to appologise for anything. As I said in my last post I actually liked what you guys had been doing with the order system but there was no point in us continuing the debate until Barry added his tuppence worth.

See you at Claymore.
Cheers
Dave
Darkman
Major
Major
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:10 am
Location: Gloucester UK

Post by Darkman » Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:59 am

Well we played our second game at the weekend and this was how we used the order markers. After throwing for the percentage number of units to move we allocated our markers. Move, charge and form markers were allocated from our percentage as were rally markers (we decided that commanders had to decide if they wanted to rally units or press ahead with attacks) defend orders would be given to Brigadiers whose brigades you did not want to move. This marker would then stay with them until the c-in-c or a messenger arrived at which point the order marker would be removed and replaced with another marker.
We know that rally does not come from the percentage allocation but after our first game it seemed right to do it. It did mean that we had to watch some of our units routing when we threw a one or two on the dice but that was part of the fun :shock:
Other than that order wise we had no problems. We did find that bluff was rarely used, as cavalry tended to want to charge other cavalry rather than be caught at the halt. We did think that cavalry should need to test not to countercharge as it would seem their natural course of action.
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:19 pm

I have always said that players should amend the rules to suit there gaming group. I have no objections to such 'in house' mods if they help you enjoy the game :D
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
Post Reply