Generals Fighting with Battle Wagons and Artillery

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Tue May 11, 2010 11:52 pm

If a general is fighting with a BG od BW or Art and the unit breaks, as there is no rout and no pursuit there is no chance for the enemy to catch the unit and kill the general on a 10+. What happens to the general provided he survives any death rolls as a result of combat?
Does he just stand there and move away in the JAP? Does he need a friendly unit within movement range?

Thank You
Gino
SMAC

TERRYFROMSPOKANE · Post by **TERRYFROMSPOKANE** » Wed May 12, 2010 1:16 am

I think the general can still be killed with a 10+. Sure there is no rout or pursuit, but the winning BG is in contact with the BG that will be destroyed. If the general survives, I think he can move away during the JAP.

Terry G.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Wed May 12, 2010 1:59 am

I believe he moves to the closest friendly unit in his move range, but the move can not pass through enemy units. Page 50 right hand column covers commander moves without a unit.
Page 49-50 has movement of commanders rules

TERRYFROMSPOKANE · Post by **TERRYFROMSPOKANE** » Wed May 12, 2010 1:56 pm

I have taken the text on page 50 to apply to a situation where an enemy BG is moving and the result of that move would "take it into contact or within shooting range" of a "commander who is not with a BG". Here, the commander and the enemy BG are in contact because the BG the commander was with has been destroyed (presumably during the "make initial rout moves" action).

I can sure see deadtorius' position as well. It would make a big difference which paradigm is used if there were no friendly BG within move distance. The way I have been doing it, the commander would have to survive the "10+" kill roll and would be free to move away during the JAP. Following the text on page 50, the commander would be lost if there was no unit close enough for him to move to.

Terry G.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed May 12, 2010 2:05 pm

The same sort of thing happens when a BG is surrounded and cannot make an initial rout move. Being destroyed on the spot.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Wed May 12, 2010 11:30 pm

Or as happened to me once, my 2 stand BG of companions had a bad death roll and auto broke leaving their general alone surrounded by enemy. We used the general moving alone rules for that one since the enemy was between him and the nearest friendly unit. He died...

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Thu May 13, 2010 3:58 pm

So is there a concensus that the General need not face a 10+ roll when the BG is picked up?
That he is free to move away in the JAP and as long as he either has a BG withing movement range or does not come into the arc of fire (during shooting phase) or the movement range of enemy (during the enemy movement phase) without a friendly BG within range he is free to move?

Thank You
Gino
SMAC

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu May 13, 2010 9:20 pm

kal5056 wrote:So is there a concensus that the General need not face a 10+ roll when the BG is picked up?
That he is free to move away in the JAP and as long as he either has a BG withing movement range or does not come into the arc of fire (during shooting phase) or the movement range of enemy (during the enemy movement phase) without a friendly BG within range he is free to move?

Thank You
Gino
SMAC

No, he does not rout but is still 'caught' by the non-pursuing pursuers so can be killed on a 10+

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Thu May 13, 2010 10:32 pm

Phill,
Can you point me to a page or other reference for this opinion?
Thank You
Gino
SMAC

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri May 14, 2010 4:33 pm

I don't believe there is a specific reference to this in the rules.

I've never played anyone who's put a Commander with artillery or battle wagons - I guess it didn't come up in play testing either.

But I agree with Phil. The BG has effectively been overrun - it can't rout so the enemy BG can't pursue - but it feels reasonable that a Commander should be put at some additional risk.

As it stands it's for you to agree with your opponent or an umpire's call.

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Fri May 14, 2010 4:46 pm

So will this be yet another "issue" left to be argued over or do we think an "OFFICIAL" clarification will ever be posted?
I know that there was extensive play testing and that every unusual situation cannot be predicted but the lack of any sense of responsability to adress these things by the "Team" in an offical capacity is becoming troublesome.

Another recent poster went off on a rant about spending $400+ and being unable to get things clarrified. I am not meaning to be that harsh but when there are those of us with hundreds of games under our belt and we identify real issues that could have multiple interpretations it would be in the best interests of the "Team" to clarify and update the FAQ.

This would definately keep the arguing and tension down in the tournaments.

Thank You
Gino
SMAC

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri May 14, 2010 4:48 pm

Fair point - I'll be seeing Simon Hall next month - I'll pass on your concerns.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat May 15, 2010 12:09 am

Could it be that FoG ancients is done. So they are concentrating on the release of FoG(R) and the finalising of FoG(N). Or could they be writing FoG2? It would be nice for any of them to say something on a number of issues that have been mentioned and do need clarification, and do an addition to the FAQ. They may not be frequent but it has been shown that these things happen.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat May 15, 2010 7:09 am

Well I know Richard is heavily involved with getting FoG:R sorted, and will be for some months to come - it is very time consuming.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Sat May 15, 2010 7:27 pm

philqw78 wrote:Could it be that FoG ancients is done. So they are concentrating on the release of FoG(R) and the finalising of FoG(N). Or could they be writing FoG2? It would be nice for any of them to say something on a number of issues that have been mentioned and do need clarification, and do an addition to the FAQ. They may not be frequent but it has been shown that these things happen.

Yep we all understand they are busy, but they ought to sentence one of their number to responding to us on somtheing like a scheduld basis. Monthly?

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Sat May 15, 2010 7:31 pm

Did anyone read the rules on this one?
The rules state that when the battle wagons are destroyed "... their opponents do not pursue."
The roll to kill generals is in the rule that describes pursuers still being in contact at the end of a pursuit move.

If there is no pursuit move, there is no roll to kill the general. Isn't this blindingly obvious?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat May 15, 2010 11:32 pm

rogerg wrote:If there is no pursuit move, there is no roll to kill the general. Isn't this blindingly obvious?

Its a blindingly obvious as the existence of a god. Unfortunately we need proof.

TERRYFROMSPOKANE · Post by **TERRYFROMSPOKANE** » Mon May 17, 2010 5:22 pm

The trouble with the "No pursuit means no death roll for the commander." principle is it leaves the commander in contact with an enemy BG and yet at no risk of being killed. That just doesn't seem right to me.

Terry G.

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Mon May 17, 2010 7:30 pm

TERRYFROMSPOKANE wrote:The trouble with the "No pursuit means no death roll for the commander." principle is it leaves the commander in contact with an enemy BG and yet at no risk of being killed. That just doesn't seem right to me.

Terry G.

He is a lone general so must move to join friends if he is threatened (can be contacted or shot at, don't have the exact wordign here) as mentioned in the rules. This seems like a simple enough way to handle it. If he cannot join friends then he dies.

Chris