Questions...

[Plainsman]

Hi!

We are in the middle of my first game of FoG using Later Republican Romans and Numidians and so far it's a BLAST!

So we have a couple of questions:

1) Can a BATTLE LINE shift one stand left or right during an advance or is this strictly limited to a BATTLE GROUP?

2) When both sides have a commander with a battle group in close combat against each other and the Melee Phase is starting, which side has to declare their commander is in the front rank or not, FIRST?

Thank you!

[timmy1]

Sorry if this is too late to help

Pages 30, 41, and 45 deal with BL and also with Shifts. There is no rule I can see there that prevents a BL from shifting and indeed it is quite a common tactic to so do (if a little cheesy other than for Romans).

For your second question, SOMEWHERE I have read that in such situations the active player always goes first but I can't find that just now so don't take that as gospel.

btw, what might help is having the latest FAQ, Errata and Players Index from http://www.fieldofglory.com/onthefieldofglory.php

The first two are really useful for some of the odd stuff (and fix the army list errata) and the Players Index will save you hours of frustration in your first games as gets you to the right page very quickly.

[david53]

2) When both sides have a commander with a battle group in close combat against each other and the Melee Phase is starting, which side has to declare their commander is in the front rank or not, FIRST?

Thank you!

Good question here come across this before as long as it sorted before dice are thrown. If there is a problum I would have said whoever charged decides first IMO.

[ShrubMiK]

I don't see why either player should be forced to make the decision before the other player does and then be bound by it.

We usually play that both players can scratch their heads for a moment...either neither of them wants to go into combat, in which neither of them do...or either one of them says "I'm putting my general in", in which case the other player decides whether to do the same or not.

[kevinj]

It's not normally a problem because if you've got a BG with a general that charges or is charged, you've put them there for the purpose of either fighting in the front rank or just for adding to a CT, so what the other player decides isn't really a factor.

[smaul1]

We think there could be advantages to deciding 2nd so last night (we go through turn 5)

we decided to choose secretly and reveal at the same time, using a d6, if it was a 6 when you removed your hand you had committed your commander.

I could see where the active player could declare first, I mean perhaps in reality, as the active player committing to charge the other player would see you riding ahead of your troops and then decide if he would so inspire or lead from the rear.

On shifting we said a battle line could not because in the examples it only used BG and we thought that perhaps that was too complex to do, but we didn't find a definite yes you could or no you could not in the rules.

This is my 2nd game, but the first one we did a bunch wrong so I still feel like its my first as well, Plains and I are having a blast, we surely appreciate the help and I might add very quick help many times on the forum.

we do have the players index (which is awesome) and the faq as well.

Steve

[david53]

We think there could be advantages to deciding 2nd so last night (we go through turn 5)

we decided to choose secretly and reveal at the same time, using a d6, if it was a 6 when you removed your hand you had committed your commander.

I could see where the active player could declare first, I mean perhaps in reality, as the active player committing to charge the other player would see you riding ahead of your troops and then decide if he would so inspire or lead from the rear.

On shifting we said a battle line could not because in the examples it only used BG and we thought that perhaps that was too complex to do, but we didn't find a definite yes you could or no you could not in the rules.

This is my 2nd game, but the first one we did a bunch wrong so I still feel like its my first as well, Plains and I are having a blast, we surely appreciate the help and I might add very quick help many times on the forum.

we do have the players index (which is awesome) and the faq as well.

Steve

The battle line like a BG can only shift one base if they move a full move as well as being outside 6MU from enemy troops.

With regard to general fighting no need to keep it secret you either fight or not if you do you reroll your dice if not you don't. For the General that dos'nt they do have an impact on the CMTs

[hazelbark]

BL can shift per rules with normal limits etc

As for Commander. See top right column page 106 At beginning of JAP phase. If in doubt phasing player chooses who has to decide first.

[paulburton]

Given the length of time associated with a turn it is not unreasonable for the second commander to choose to commit 'a little bit later' than his opponent. So I would allow a commander to react to the actions of his/her opponent.

I usually have some sort of tactical doctrine - Romans almost always stay out of the fighting to control legionaries (especially Tiberius Claudius Nero, my IC). Troop commanders with Auxiliary cavalry usually lead from the front.

For my Foederate Romans the Generals control the front line foot from behind to keep them in place and only join the fighting once the German mercenaries have been disposed of and the Auxilia are fighting.

Macedonian successors (I favour Antigonos Monopthalamos or Antipatros - I have the 'Aged Emperor' vuignette from Gripping Beast which is fine for Hellenistic Armies as well) tend to fight from the front as the ratio of Battle Groups to Generals is lower. It depends if you have a one or two line deployment and what your troops need to acheive.

[expendablecinc]

BL can shift per rules with normal limits etc

As for Commander. See top right column page 106 At beginning of JAP phase. If in doubt phasing player chooses who has to decide first.

Thats the convention in my experience as well. Applying nomination of generals fighting in front rank by inactive player first as per movement of generals in JAP.

anthony

[SirGarnet]

I don't see why either player should be forced to make the decision before the other player does and then be bound by it.

We usually play that both players can scratch their heads for a moment...either neither of them wants to go into combat, in which neither of them do...or either one of them says "I'm putting my general in", in which case the other player decides whether to do the same or not.

That is how it is commonly done. Forcing one's way to the front rank does not take much time and may well be in response to the challenge of one's counterpart doing so.

As for Commander. See top right column page 106 At beginning of JAP phase. If in doubt phasing player chooses who has to decide first.

I've drawn the same inference, but page 106 specifically addresses only the JAP. The decision is made in Impact and Melee, and the rule on page 99 is only that either player may commit before dice are rolled.

[hazelbark]

If I was the phasing player. My opponent without me asking said, he was not committing my general and I said I was, then he changed his mind I would think that was peculiar.

I think page 106 applies and it resolves with clarity.

I think you start to open up all sorts of issues, of "at any point. My commander was already in, POAs were clear, I roll dice. Opponent looks at my dice and says oh I will put my commander in. Technically maybe permissable, certainly peculiar.

Much better to just use Page 106 and have a simple declarative process. Solves the hide who's commander is going in bit and IMV speeds up the game.

[timmy1]

I agreed with Mr H.

[ShrubMiK]

Methinks you are choosing to exaggerate the potential for difficulty! Slows thew game down? IME people spend a lot longer thinking about whether to charge or not, and at what angle than they do about whether to stick a commander in.

And I think the rule of common sense ought to apply. If any dice have been thrown it is too late to decide to put a commander in, obviously. (Or similarly to take one out after you throw all 6s anyway!) And most people IME don't rush to throwing dice before giving the opponent a chance to decide what to do. Always seems to work fine.

What seems odd to me is the idea that the person declaring the charge has to make a commitment first. Whether I put my commander in may depend on what the opponent decides to do. Is there a good reason why the charger should be disadvantaged by having to decide first?

[hazelbark]

Methinks you are choosing to exaggerate the potential for difficulty! Slows thew game down? IME people spend a lot longer thinking about whether to charge or not, and at what angle than they do about whether to stick a commander in.

And I think the rule of common sense ought to apply. If any dice have been thrown it is too late to decide to put a commander in, obviously. (Or similarly to take one out after you throw all 6s anyway!) And most people IME don't rush to throwing dice before giving the opponent a chance to decide what to do. Always seems to work fine.

What seems odd to me is the idea that the person declaring the charge has to make a commitment first. Whether I put my commander in may depend on what the opponent decides to do. Is there a good reason why the charger should be disadvantaged by having to decide first?

I plead guilty to making an exxageration to make the point. And I can work on subtle example, but the point holds I think. I have wtinesed times where people are in a hurry.

Your last paragraph is not what the rule reads btw. The phasing player chooses who decides first is the rule. ie they get to say heck my general is in what do you do? Or is your general in?

[ShrubMiK]

Oh, ok, I misinterpreted what you meant.

But that just makes it the same problem* the other way round. A smart, game-wise phasing player should always make the other player choose first, and then react. I suppose at least that may in some circumstances reward a player for playing aggressively rather than being the passive one.

[SirGarnet]

I think page 106 applies and it resolves with clarity.

It would if it did, and it may be a good idea, but I think you are overstating things to say it is the rule without stating a clear basis for the conclusion.

* Page 106 applies to the JAP.
* It is not necessary to extend page 106 since there is already a process for declaring combat in the front rank between two players.
* It is tactically different from the current rule.

The current rule says either player can declare he is in the front rank before combat dice are thrown (in practice this is decided as each combat area is resolved). This does not preclude a player from saying he's in if the other side is in (or in if he is not), which resolves the matter and avoids any guessing games by leaving it up to the other player to decide to say he is in or just roll the dice.

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

I feel p. 106 deals only with the JAP.

It normally is not a problem in our games, but when it is, I think the matter should be decide in secret. I provide each side with a poker chip with "IN" and "OUT" written on the two sides. In the few cases where no one wants to declare first, Players make their choice and place it on the table underneath a hand and both reveal their choice simultaneously. It comes up less than a half dozen time in a game and takes little time to resolve in this manner.

Terry G.

[timmy1]

Terry, maybe it it just who I play against and using 4 TC per side but I find that this comes up roughly once every pair bounds after the first two. The commanders are usually with the key BGs. I think that we need an extention of P106 in the Errata or FAQ. My preference is as per P106 down the line because it is simple but I will go with whatever Slitherine decide.

[ShrubMiK]

What proportion of times do you find generals being committed to battle in the front rank?

My experience and feeling is that a lot of the time players (and especially me!) don't want to commit a general, because tempting as it is to go all out in whatever combat is at hand, they know that the general will inevitably be needed elsewhere very soon. But there is always the temptation of trying to get a quick win in the comabt, which would then free up the general again anyway. If the opponent doesn't commit their general, it is easy to keep yours out too. But if the opponent shoves the general in, it is much harder to accept disadvantage in the current combat in the hope of possibly gaining more advantage sometime later.

It would be interesting to see if a mechanic where one player must make a binding decision before knowing what the other will do would change the outcome of the decision significantly. Would that player be more likely to put the general in, just in case the enemy does so and leaves him at a temporary disadvantage?