Current Thoughts on Lost Dice

[fsmall]

Somehow I've gotten obsessed with the mechanism for apportioning dice lost due to disruption, fragmentation, etc... Rather than seek counseling, I've decided it would be cheaper to simply discuss it with the group.

Hi, my name is Francis, and I'm a Rules Lawyer...

OK, here's the situation: your disrupted BG of 5 bases is fighting 2 enemy BGs: 2 bases fighting BG 'X' at factor 'a', 2 fighting BG 'Y' at factor 'b', 1 base fighting 'Y' at factor 'c':

XYY
abc
ab-

You lose 1 dice per 3. For 5 dice you just lose 1. The question being, which dice can you lose: a, b, and/or c?

After periods of deep introspection, reading other posts on the subject, consulting the Oracle at Guinness, and, *gasp*, reading the rules, I've decided that you have no choice: you must lose 1 of your 3 dice against BG Y, and it must be at factor 'b'.

I will admit that the rules on p. 94 are not as clear as they could/should be. What is (relatively) clear IMO is that you can not lose the lone 'c' dice, based on the 2nd bullet on p. 94 which says "If fighting at different POAs... [leave] at least 1 dice (if possible) against each part of the enemy BG".

The argument that you must lose your dice against BG Y and not X is more tenuous, but basically rests on assertions that a) it best follows the spirit of the rule (and works well in practice), and, b) to permit otherwise leads to patent silliness. More specifically, I would argue that if part of your combat dice can be apportioned evenly, they you can (and must) apportion lost dice within that part, without regard for what is happening in the wider combat. In the example above, since you have 3 dice against BG Y, and you lose 1 dice per 3, you *automatically* lose 1 and only 1 dice against BG Y, irregardless of whether or not other parts of your BG are fighting elsewhere and with what number of dice. The alternative - that even though normally you would lose 1 of 3 dice against Y, that instead you can lose 0 or 2 because of the circumstances of the wider battle - is a recipie or silliness or even abuse.

Thanks for listening

[hammy]

Hi, I agree with you.

You have 3 dice against BG Y and 2 against BG X as you have 3 dice against one BG you must lose one of these three. As they are split between two different POAs you must keep the lone dice from c so you lose one of the two dice from file b.

If there was no base c then the disrupted BG would have 2 dice against each BG and 4 dice in total so you have to lose 1 dice. Because you have 2 dice against each BG you can choose which dice you lose.

[fsmall]

How about the situation on p. 167 with the Roman legion? To recap, 5 disrupted bases are fighting in 3 groups of 2, 2 and 1 base respectively, for 4, 4, and 2 dice before losing dice due to disruption. Losing 1 per 3, they will lose 3 dice. What are the legal combinations of dice they can fight with? There are 4 possibilities:

a) 1, 4, 2 (lose all 3 dice from a group of 4)
b) 2, 4, 1 (lose 2 from 1 group of 4, none from the other, and 1 from the group of 2)
c) 2, 3, 2 (lose 2 from 1 group of 4, 1 from the other group of 4, and none from the group of 2)
d) 3, 3, 1 (lose 1 dice from each group)

Note that other possibilities that reduce the group of 2 to 0 are clearly illegal, since, if possible, you can't reduce a group to 0.

Of the four possibilities above, I would say that a) and b) are fairly clearly illegal (and certaintly illegal based on hammy's reply) based on the principle that you must lose 1 from *every* group of 3 'identical' dice regardless of other circumstances in order to follow the spirit of the rules.

I would further argue that d) is more in keeping with the spirit of the rules. After removing the 2 groups of 3 dice from consideration, you are left with a grouping of 1-1-2. Keeping with the rule that says you can't reduce a group to 0, the last dice would be removed from the remaining grouping of 2.

I think in tourney play, I would argue firmly (though politely ) against an opponent that tried to do a) or b), and would call for the umpire's opinion if needed. I would argue against c), but probably would cede the issue before calling an umpire. To be true to my principles, I should only permit myself to choose d).