"Lion Rampant 3" spacing" Topic

I don't like the required 3" spacing between units in Lion Rampant. I can't see any historical situation it's supposed to represent, it causes traffic jams and deployment issues that feel completely arbitrary and sometimes unhistorical, and together these things make the rule feel very "gamey" and artificial. What is that rule supposed to accomplish? Will it hurt the game mechanics in some way I haven't foreseen to play without it?

I'm curious about what other people have to say. Especially people named Daniel Mersey. :-)

Pointers to previous online discussions about this appreciated. I haven't stumbled across any yet.

- Ix

I just ignore it.

In our little group, we ignore this rule and just use common sense. We don't play that the initiative moves to the other side if you fail to activate either, we just try to activate all units of one side and then the initiative moves to the other side.
We found that we had to many games where one side consistently fails to activate and the game becomes very one sided.

Since there aren't many formation rules, I guess it's to prevent units from occupying too narrow a frontage.

I guess it's to prevent units from occupying too narrow a frontage.

How does a 3" spacing rule achieve that? Units deployed on a narrow frontage will find it easier to maintain the spacing since each takes up less space.

I tried to run with it but very quickly everyone including me forgot/ignored it.

It's just to maintain a zone of control for each unit and to keep units visually seperate.

If you don't like a rule, change it!

It's just to maintain a zone of control for each unit

How does a 3" spacing rule maintain a zone of control? The spacing rule applies to friendly units not enemy units.

A question to ask on Dan's forum: I'm sure he's answered it before. IIRC it a) keeps thing simple and b) presents some interesting tactical options/problems. In short, LR tends towards the game end of simulation/game and this is one of the rules. As Major B and others have said, it's not a game-breaker to modify or ignore the rule.

My group only worries about it when you have to retreet. IF you don't have atleast 3" path you take another hit.

Nobody in our group likes it because it actually requires one to think and preplan.

Dan Mersey's (brief) explanation is:

It adds an extra layer of thought to everything you need to do, and makes the otherwise simple manoeuvring a bit more thought provoking. I'm sure most players can see why it works with enemy units, but I like the way it forces you to work out the best relationship between your own units too.

Link
duxrampant.yuku.com/topic/160/3-inch-gaps#.VsYshfKLSUk

One tactic implied in the LR book that the 3" rule allows is as follows.

Have 2 melee units with a 3" gap & a missile unit behind & centered between the 2 units. This allows the missile unit to fire through the 3" gap & provide support to the melee units, but still be protected from any charges to its front.

Since a 12 figure 28mm unit will take up around 4-5" diameter if in a circular group, any gap less than 3" might seem to small for them to fire through.

Advocate…your right that LR is at the 'game' end of things. The author is quite clear that the rules are about Hollywood, not history. Nothing wrong with just ignoring the rule if it does n't make historical sense – same with the army lists of course.

I like the mechanic but our 10 player games just took up too much table space so we dropped the rule.

We ignore the 3" spacing for friendly units, but do enforce it for enemy units.

Have 2 melee units with a 3" gap & a missile unit behind & centered between the 2 units. This allows the missile unit to fire through the 3" gap & provide support to the melee units, but still be protected from any charges to its front.

But you could do that anyway, with or without a 3" spacing rule.

We do the same as m4jumbo.

We ignore it for friendly units

We also ignore it for friendlies, but enemy units have to stay 3" away unless they are attacking.

My big problem with it is that I keep forgetting! Otherwise I am indifferent to it: sometimes it creates unnecessary hassles that really don't benefit the game and at other times it adds a tactical layer. I play against Jeff and he very much likes it.

I can't actually find where in the rule book it talks about this rule applying to friendlies. It talks about not coming closer than 3" of enemy on p17, but can anyone tell me where to find the rule for friendlies?

Section 2, under 'Unit Cohesion:'

Keep at least 3" between units unless they are fighting; this makes it clear which unit is which and
acts as a zone of control for each unit, applying equally to friends and enemies. The only time that units
may be in contact with another is during the Attack sequence, and models may never move within 3" of
another unit at any other time.
As no unit may move within 3" of another unit, friendly units may not move through one another.

Section 2, under 'Unit Cohesion:'

Ah, thank you. No wonder I couldn't find it. Unit Cohesion is not the same thing as spacing between units.

I still think it's an unnecessary rule and will continue to ignore it.

Sorry I was unclear, I was specifically referring to the Unit Cohesion rule preventing freinds from getting too close. I don't mind the rule enforcing a stop-or-close zone at 3" between enemies, and the various little mentions of the importance of a 3" gap for certain activities make sense. It's nice to have a "standard gap", I just can't see any good reason to make friends stand so far apart.

I am pleased to hear nobody ignoring the rule feels that broke the game. :-)

- Ix

We ignored it after the first turn of our first game. Makes no historical sense (bad simulation rule) and is tedious to enforce (bad rule for "fun" ga,es). So its pretty much meets the definition of a bad rule (less playability and reduces simulation value).

As to making you think that's better accomplished by say real formation rules etc. Having players solve algebra problems before being able to move would make you think more but not make for a more fun or more realistic game.

Have they dropped this rule bomb from Dragon Rampant?

Lion is a good game that just needs a bit of development.

TomT