Commander bonus in cohesion tests

[mceochaidh]

I have searched for posts on this subject and found a long series in March, but it is still unclear to me. The rules give the following mods:

+2 The BG in command range of an inspired commander
+1 The BG in command range of a field or troop commander
+1 The BG is adjacent to a friendly commander

If a BG tests cohesion for receiving two hits from shooting and has a field commander adjacent, does the BG get +1 for being in command range and an additional +1 for being adjacent?

Is the same true for a unit in the other circumstances, such as receiving more hits from combat, routing friends and so on?

If a commander's own BG tests for any of these causes, does the BG receive the same + for being in range and + for being adjacent (or in this case with) the commander's BG?

A related question is does a commander being with a BG upgrade the BG upwards one level for auto-rout? For example, does a superior BG act like an Elite BG for auto-rout if the commander is with the BG?

[CheerfullyInsane]

I have searched for posts on this subject and found a long series in March, but it is still unclear to me. The rules give the following mods:

+2 The BG in command range of an inspired commander
+1 The BG in command range of a field or troop commander
+1 The BG is adjacent to a friendly commander

If a BG tests cohesion for receiving two hits from shooting and has a field commander adjacent, does the BG get +1 for being in command range and an additional +1 for being adjacent?

Yes and no. No, for the example above, but you can get +1 for being adjacent to a commander, and then get +2 for being in command range of an Inspired commander.
I think it's also true for troop/field commanders. In other words, you get +1 for being adjacent to a commander, and can then get additional bonuses for being in command range of higher rated commanders.

Is the same true for a unit in the other circumstances, such as receiving more hits from combat, routing friends and so on?

Yes. Although obviously you won't get the benefits of the leader when doing a cohesion-test for leader-loss

If a commander's own BG tests for any of these causes, does the BG receive the same + for being in range and + for being adjacent (or in this case with) the commander's BG?

According to the rules, no.
But look at this.

Not sure if it's a bug, or a change in the design made after they did that infamous Help-file.

A related question is does a commander being with a BG upgrade the BG upwards one level for auto-rout? For example, does a superior BG act like an Elite BG for auto-rout if the commander is with the BG?

No, but it usually does better simply due to having the commander in the unit.

Disclaimer: All the above is what I *think* is correct.
Though with the haphazard approach to the rulebook this game presents, it might be wrong.

CheerfullyInsane

[mceochaidh]

Thanks for reply;

So if a troop commander is adjacent to BG testing there is a +1; and if a different field commander is within command range there is an additional +1, but this does not apply if only one commander is adjacent?

What about the reverse? If a field commander is adjacent there is a +1; and if a different troop commander is within command range, is there an additional +1? Or is it only when a "Higher" commander is in command range that the additional +1 given?

That sceen shot above is from the so called "verbose" results screen?

[CheerfullyInsane]

Thanks for reply;

So if a troop commander is adjacent to BG testing there is a +1; and if a different field commander is within command range there is an additional +1, but this does not apply if only one commander is adjacent?

What about the reverse? If a field commander is adjacent there is a +1; and if a different troop commander is within command range, is there an additional +1? Or is it only when a "Higher" commander is in command range that the additional +1 given?

That sceen shot above is from the so called "verbose" results screen?

Well, the way I see it is that you always get a +1 for an adjacent commander (+2 if Insp.)
You get additional bonuses if you're adjacent to a commander AND you're in command range of a 'higher' commander as well.
I've seen it when adjacent to a Field-commander+in range of Insp. commander. Not sure if it's a valid with Troop/Field commanders.

And yeah, it's the verbose report in the pic. Hotkey 'U' if memory serves.

CheerfullyInsane

[jamespcrowley]

The questions raised in this thread, as well as those in other recent threads about drilled units, scrub etc etc. would be unnecessary if the 'Rules' i.e the so-called Help file, was brought up to date. As it stands, it is IMO, a disgrace.

I really do not know how new players get to grips with the game, given that a lot of the information in the Help file is out of date and, consequently, incorrect. Having to trawl through forum posts (without a search facility) is an unacceptable substitute for a decent manual.

With three expansions published and a fourth on its way, I think there is no excuse for not producing a cohesive set of up to date rules. At the very least it is a common coutesy to Slitherines paying customers.

[Melnibone]

I agree! Having recently purchased the base game and a module I expected an up to date manual to be provided. As an example, I had to search the forums to find out what "Double Moves" were.

[Brigz]

The questions raised in this thread, as well as those in other recent threads about drilled units, scrub etc etc. would be unnecessary if the 'Rules' i.e the so-called Help file, was brought up to date. As it stands, it is IMO, a disgrace.

I really do not know how new players get to grips with the game, given that a lot of the information in the Help file is out of date and, consequently, incorrect. Having to trawl through forum posts (without a search facility) is an unacceptable substitute for a decent manual.

With three expansions published and a fourth on its way, I think there is no excuse for not producing a cohesive set of up to date rules. At the very least it is a common coutesy to Slitherines paying customers.

Absolutely agree with this! I understand that Hexwar and Slitherine are understaffed and doing the best they can, but it's getting to the point where no one has a firm grasp of the rules. When I play I just move units to maneuver or battle without having the slightest idea if I'm making the correct decisions. I don't mean to make this a rant against the game. On the contrary, I love this game and appreciate all the hard work that has gone into it. But it's really a shame that there is no way to understand the mechanics of the game with the nebulous rule situation as it currently exits. Surely someone can find the time to go through the "rules" and update them so we can all have a firm basis to play and discuss this game. Heck, I'd be more than willing to forestall further expansions if that would give the developers some time to work on bringing the "rules" up to date. If given the choice between releasing another expansion or a cleaned up set of rules, I'd gladly choose updated rules.

[batesmotel]

For most cohesion tests, the commander modifier applied is the same if you are anywhere within command range. The exceptions are for units attempting to rally/bolster to regain cohesion and for cohesion tests as a result of losing in impact or melee. In these cases the commander modifier only applies if the commander is adjacent to or with the BG taking the test. Using the summary display window (U is the short cut) will usually show you what modifiers are applied in particular cohesion tests. This is probably the best way to get to understand many of the details of how the game works until the on line help catches up with the game changes and improvements.

Chris

[gazxtrix]

I'm firmly of the belief the rules should be up to date. Its part of the process of issuing supplements.
At the very least move it to a Wicki so that those that do know the rules, can keep it updated.

Gary

[claymore58]

I'm firmly of the belief the rules should be up to date. Its part of the process of issuing supplements.
At the very least move it to a Wicki so that those that do know the rules, can keep it updated.
Gary

Good point, Gazxtix. Perhaps if the developers updated the Wikki whenever they made a rules change, we could have visibility on what has changed. I'm sure that the dev team already have something like this. They just need to clean it up and post it here .... simple

[batesmotel]

There usually are Release Notes included in the on line help which you can find listed in the index. While not detailed they will generally give you an idea about what has changed in each update.

Chris

[gavril]

"Absolutely agree with this! I understand that Hexwar and Slitherine are understaffed and doing the best they can, but it's getting to the point where no one has a firm grasp of the rules. When I play I just move units to maneuver or battle without having the slightest idea if I'm making the correct decisions."

I agree with this too. I feel like I'm playing 'in the dark', and to be honest I'm within an ace of just giving up on the game. It's unreasonable to expect players to deduce the way combat outcomes work by hot-keying their way through every combat and taking notes - this is supposed to be fun, not a full time job. The game plus the cost of the expansions is not particularly cheap, and it's not unreasonable to expect for there to be a decent help file, wiki or whatever if the developers really don't have time to produce a pdf manual.

[CheerfullyInsane]

There usually are Release Notes included in the on line help which you can find listed in the index. While not detailed they will generally give you an idea about what has changed in each update.

Chris

No offense Chris, but the people who play this game are (mainly) hard-core strategy-gamers.
We want to know if hoplites mainly withdraw to the left because of the weight of the shield, or whether undrilled cavalry get a -1 on the charge because they don't trim the manes of their horses.
Getting a "general idea" just won't cut it with stat-addicts like us.
When we reach the point where even experienced players are unsure of the rules because of constant changes, that's when I start to worry.

The game plus the cost of the expansions is not particularly cheap, and it's not unreasonable to expect for there to be a decent help file, wiki or whatever if the developers really don't have time to produce a pdf manual.

First time I find myself in complete disagreement in this thread.
Not particularly cheap?!?
Considering the open-ended design of the game, and thus the amount of bang you get for your buck, I personally think this game is a steal.
Looking at the competition company-wise, you'll be hard-pressed to find a decent strategy-game (not RTS-crap, mind you) for anything less than £35 and usually more. And this is no guarantee that the level of quality follows suit.
Bear in mind that this is still something of a niche in the gaming-community, and thus prices are higher than your average kill-everything-that-moves-shooter.
Don't get me wrong, I still think there's a ton of room for improvement.
Army-lists expandable beyond the 800-1000 pts limit, a *real* manual, a little less luck in the combat-execution, to name but a few.
But all in all, I haven't been this enamored with a game since the halcyon days of Advanced Squad Leader.

I do however, agree that there should be a Wiki instead of (or as a supplement to) the by now infamous Help-file.
Though that would obviously require someone to be heading it, which in all probability would be one of us.
I doubt either Slitherine or HexWar has the ability to have someone manning a Wiki full-time

Lars

[Adraeth]

I agree that a manual, for example in .pdf so i can print it and read when i am at work (... ehm at home), is needed.

[gavril]

Let me clarify my comment about the cost of the game. I agree that the cost of the core game is very reasonable; but once you include the cost of the expansions then for someone on an average income it's a significant sum of money. In many ways I love the game but I'm immensely frustrated by the lack of clear documentation.