Immediate Thoughts

[Bugle999]

I have recently joined the Beta test group and the authors asked that we post our initial thoughts after reading the rules and prior to playing a first game. Well as requested here it goes...
Generally I found the rules excellent, very easy to read and very clear on any point they intended to make. Obviously the addition of diagrams, that were not present in my copy, would be an added bonus. The addition of a comprehensive Index/Table of Contents would help greatly as well. I have listed below various bits and pieces where things appeared unclear or I thought needed clarification. As stated above, this is without having actually played a game so if some of the points made turn out to be an irrelevance please excuse me in advance.

1. Page 15 Para 3. This states the game ends 'immediately' either (or both) armies suffer an army rout. This appears at odds with Page 70 Para 1 that states you wait until the start of a 'Joint Action Phase' before adjudicating this. I would suggest this is just clarified on Page 15 by the addition of 'at the start of the Joint Action Phase' to the relevant sentance.

2. Page 76. The description of Scythed Chariots needs to be widened to include 'Flaming Wagons', 'Herds of Cattle/Camels' etc. This is so that Armies like Acient Spanish, Western Sudanese can use them - in the latter Army they have little else!

3. Page 19. Move Distances. Make it clear that the MU's shown and the effect of disorder etc. is on 'maximum' move distances.

4. Page 20 3rd bullet from top. Is this Cavalry example correct, if it is it is unclear to me? They have a maximum move of 5 MU in the open, they have used 3 MU so far, this these leaves them 2 MU to move in Uneven which is reduced by one fifth i.e. they can move roughly 1.5. Please clarify this - maybe another example or reword?

5. Page 22 3rd Bullet. Can an Inspirded Commander WITH a unit add the +1 for 'in line' and +1 for being 'Inspired' i.e. Total +2.

6. Page 27 Reforming. If a BG has repulsed a Frontal assault, but another enemey base is still in contact with its flank. It would appear the BG can 'reform' in a one element wide column, behind the one in contact, facing this flank. Is this what is intended? Should the BG be able to expand on the flank and THEN reform?

7. Page 28 Troops leaving the Table. Should this read, 'It counts as 1 OR 2 Attrition points, rather than just 1 Attrition Point?

8. Page 43 Arc of Fire 4th Bullet. It says Battle Wagons can shoot from either 'long side' - please clarify if they can fire from both these sides in the same shooting phase?

9. Page 54 Heavy Weapon - should read' 'Cancels enemy 'BETTER' armour POA if any'.

10. Page 90 Rivers and Coasts - should read, ,but not slid OR PIVOTTED'.

11. Terrain placement. On my reading, it appears that quite a lot of different terrain combinations can be slid/pivotted beneath/on top of one another. If individuals use flat cloth or felt shapes for terrain this is fine, but what happens if people have invested in sculptured 'non'flat' terrain pieces? Would it not be simpler to say terrain pieces can 'butt up' to other pieces but no overlap (other than roads, building on a hill etc.) - just a suggestion?

12. Page 69 Auto Break. This rule seems to adversely effect small units. I have no problem with this as those who choose to have alot of small units get the benefit of a larger Army Rout point. However, for BG types that are currently forced to be in small BG's of 2 bases i.e. WarWagons/Elephants etc. this seems to have significant adverse effect. Could a possible solution be to exclude these too troop types (and any others that are forced to be in two's for BG's) from Auto Break - but instead add an additional minus to cohesion tests, something like: If War Wagons/Elephants are reduced to 1 base minus 2 (maybe even a minus 3??)

I hope these thoughts/observations prove useful and I look forward to posting my findings after my firast game on Tuesday.

Overall I am very, very impressed.

[rbodleyscott]

1. Page 15 Para 3. This states the game ends 'immediately' either (or both) armies suffer an army rout. This appears at odds with Page 70 Para 1 that states you wait until the start of a 'Joint Action Phase' before adjudicating this. I would suggest this is just clarified on Page 15 by the addition of 'at the start of the Joint Action Phase' to the relevant sentance.

Well spotted. In the latest version we had changed the P 15 reference to "at the end of the current phase". We will now change the P.70 to match. Also the Army Rout entry in the Glossary of Terms.

2. Page 76. The description of Scythed Chariots needs to be widened to include 'Flaming Wagons', 'Herds of Cattle/Camels' etc. This is so that Armies like Acient Spanish, Western Sudanese can use them - in the latter Army they have little else!

Most such ploys (stratagems) were not a "regular" part of the army. Hence we are saving them for the Campaign supplement.

4. Page 20 3rd bullet from top. Is this Cavalry example correct, if it is it is unclear to me? They have a maximum move of 5 MU in the open, they have used 3 MU so far, this these leaves them 2 MU to move in Uneven which is reduced by one fifth i.e. they can move roughly 1.5. Please clarify this - maybe another example or reword?

It means what it says. For simplicity's sake you don't reduce the move proportionately. If they have already moved 3 MUs they cannot enter the terrain at all.

5. Page 22 3rd Bullet. Can an Inspirded Commander WITH a unit add the +1 for 'in line' and +1 for being 'Inspired' i.e. Total +2.

Yes. In fact he can get +3 if with the BG. (Obviously, he is in command range if with the BG).

6. Page 27 Reforming. If a BG has repulsed a Frontal assault, but another enemey base is still in contact with its flank. It would appear the BG can 'reform' in a one element wide column, behind the one in contact, facing this flank. Is this what is intended?

Yes

Should the BG be able to expand on the flank and THEN reform?

Both things are done in the same sub-phase of the manoeuvre phase. (see the Full Sequence of Play on the last page)

7. Page 28 Troops leaving the Table. Should this read, 'It counts as 1 OR 2 Attrition points, rather than just 1 Attrition Point?

Yes. Well spotted. It has been corrected in the current version.

8. Page 43 Arc of Fire 4th Bullet. It says Battle Wagons can shoot from either 'long side' - please clarify if they can fire from both these sides in the same shooting phase?

Clarification will be considered. "Either" does not, however, mean "both".

9. Page 54 Heavy Weapon - should read' 'Cancels enemy 'BETTER' armour POA if any'.

Well spotted. Corrected.

10. Page 90 Rivers and Coasts - should read, ,but not slid OR PIVOTTED'.

Thanks

11. Terrain placement. On my reading, it appears that quite a lot of different terrain combinations can be slid/pivotted beneath/on top of one another. If individuals use flat cloth or felt shapes for terrain this is fine, but what happens if people have invested in sculptured 'non'flat' terrain pieces? Would it not be simpler to say terrain pieces can 'butt up' to other pieces but no overlap (other than roads, building on a hill etc.) - just a suggestion?

It's a thought.

12. Page 69 Auto Break. This rule seems to adversely effect small units. I have no problem with this as those who choose to have alot of small units get the benefit of a larger Army Rout point. However, for BG types that are currently forced to be in small BG's of 2 bases i.e. WarWagons/Elephants etc. this seems to have significant adverse effect. Could a possible solution be to exclude these too troop types (and any others that are forced to be in two's for BG's) from Auto Break - but instead add an additional minus to cohesion tests, something like: If War Wagons/Elephants are reduced to 1 base minus 2 (maybe even a minus 3??)

We intend elephants and artillery to be brittle. It is an integral part of the simulation in the case of elephants. Battle wagons are not forced to be in BGs of 2. (The lists allow BWg BGs of 2-4).

I hope these thoughts/observations prove useful

Very much so, thanks.

Overall I am very, very impressed.

Thanks

[Bugle999]

4. Page 20 3rd bullet from top. Is this Cavalry example correct, if it is it is unclear to me? They have a maximum move of 5 MU in the open, they have used 3 MU so far, this these leaves them 2 MU to move in Uneven which is reduced by one fifth i.e. they can move roughly 1.5. Please clarify this - maybe another example or reword?

It means what it says. For simplicity's sake you don't reduce the move proportionately. If they have already moved 3 MUs they cannot enter the terrain at all.

Thanks for the speedy response. Plase see above question/comment. I still don't quite grasp what is being said here. Why is it that Cavalry with 3 MU's of movement left cannot enter and move say 0.5 MU in the Uneven terrain. As I currently understand it the 4 MU's in Uneven terrain for Cavalry is a Maximum potential move in that terrain type, what prevents them expending some of their remaining 3 MU's move and moving less then this maximum. From your answer I think you might be implying that you need to have to match the Maximum MU left in your move with that of the terrain type you wish to enter in order to enter such terrain - I don't think it says this anywhere though??? Say Light Foot have moved 1.5 MU and reach difficult, why are they prevented from moving some of their remaining 3.5 MU move - say an additional 0.5 MU? If I am finding this unclear I think it may need clarification or some further examples as I don't think I'm the dimist around (hopefully!). Cheers.

Real shame you appear not to be including the herds of cattle/camels used by the Western Sudanese etc. Many of us have invested in such troop types (expensive in 25mm) and the figures will become redundant.
Hopefully, you might reconsider/rejig the Auto Break Rule for Elephants - at 50pts for just 2 bases it is a lot to lose as soon as there is just the loss of one base - they might never even get into contact if just one lucky artillery/bow shot. I would have thought an amendment to the cohesion test rules for Elephants (say a minus 2 or 3 if only 1 base left) would give the brittleness you seek, whilst at least giving the chance of 1 Elephant remaining to fight at least one round of combat! This is especially so in Army Lists that have their main offensive arm as Elephants, or require a certain compulsory use - yet preclude using them in BG's greater than 2.

Thanks again.

[rbodleyscott]

4. Page 20 3rd bullet from top. Is this Cavalry example correct, if it is it is unclear to me? They have a maximum move of 5 MU in the open, they have used 3 MU so far, this these leaves them 2 MU to move in Uneven which is reduced by one fifth i.e. they can move roughly 1.5. Please clarify this - maybe another example or reword?

It means what it says. For simplicity's sake you don't reduce the move proportionately. If they have already moved 3 MUs they cannot enter the terrain at all.

Thanks for the speedy response. Plase see above question/comment. I still don't quite grasp what is being said here. Why is it that Cavalry with 3 MU's of movement left cannot enter and move say 0.5 MU in the Uneven terrain. As I currently understand it the 4 MU's in Uneven terrain for Cavalry is a Maximum potential move in that terrain type, what prevents them expending some of their remaining 3 MU's move and moving less then this maximum. From your answer I think you might be implying that you need to have to match the Maximum MU left in your move with that of the terrain type you wish to enter in order to enter such terrain - I don't think it says this anywhere though??? Say Light Foot have moved 1.5 MU and reach difficult, why are they prevented from moving some of their remaining 3.5 MU move - say an additional 0.5 MU? If I am finding this unclear I think it may need clarification or some further examples as I don't think I'm the dimist around (hopefully!). Cheers.

My original answer was not entirely correct. If they have moved 3 MUs when they reach the terrain, and their movement allowance is 4 MUs in the terrain, they can move 1 MU into it.

The example in the rules is incorrect - it should say "Rough" rather than "uneven". (We did change the move reductions for cavalry in different terrains since the example was first written, but failed to spot the anomaly).

However, the key point is not to think in terms of them using up a certain _proporttion_ of their total move at a certain _speed_. The movement distances are absolute, and if the BG enters a piece of terrain in which its move is 4 MUs it cannot _ever_ exceed 4 MUs in total.

This is for simplicity, and precisely to avoid having to work out porportional partial moves.

What we need to do is to excise all references to "speed" and talk only in terms of "distance".

(A hangover from our previous wargaming experience, I suspect. We are used to this method of dealing with the effects of terrain and did not spot that our words could be interpreted differently).

Hopefully, you might reconsider/rejig the Auto Break Rule for Elephants - at 50pts for just 2 bases it is a lot to lose as soon as there is just the loss of one base - they might never even get into contact if just one lucky artillery/bow shot. I would have thought an amendment to the cohesion test rules for Elephants (say a minus 2 or 3 if only 1 base left) would give the brittleness you seek, whilst at least giving the chance of 1 Elephant remaining to fight at least one round of combat! This is especially so in Army Lists that have their main offensive arm as Elephants, or require a certain compulsory use - yet preclude using them in BG's greater than 2.

You will note that elephants get +1 on their death roll, in addition to the normal +2 when testing for shooting hits. Thus you need 4 shooting hits on an elephant BG to have any chance at all of them failing a death roll. 4 hits are not that easy to achieve unless you have them surrounded. Moreover, if elephants are screend by light infantry (as they often were historically) or in a solid line with other troops (which prevents shooting being concentrated on them), this risk can be avoided.

[rbodleyscott]

Does the following wording clarify?

• The lower move distance applies to the whole move if any part of any base of the battle group is in distance-reducing terrain at any stage of its move. As a result, sometimes battle groups can reach the edge of a piece of terrain but not enter it. e.g. if cavalry have moved at least 3 MU in the open and meet rough terrain, they have already moved their maximum rough terrain distance, so cannot enter it.
• Troops in column move at +1 MU along roads or through any terrain if the indicated move distance is less than their move distance in open terrain.
• Battle groups with mixed troop-types have the move distance of the slower type.
• Battle lines have the move distance of their slowest battle group.
• Battle groups moving through more than one type of terrain are limited to the shortest move distance shown for any of those terrain types. Battle groups with mixed troop types use the shortest move distance that would apply to any base in the battle group, even if that base is clear of the terrain. e.g. heavy foot backed by a rank of light foot move at 2 MU in rough terrain, even if only the rear rank of light foot is in the rough terrain.

[Bugle999]

• The lower move distance applies to the whole move if any part of any base of the battle group is in distance-reducing terrain at any stage of its move. As a result, sometimes battle groups can reach the edge of a piece of terrain but not enter it. e.g. if cavalry have moved at least 3 MU in the open and meet rough terrain, they have already moved their maximum rough terrain distance, so cannot enter it.
• Troops in column move at +1 MU along roads or through any terrain if the indicated move distance is less than their move distance in open terrain.
• Battle groups with mixed troop-types have the move distance of the slower type.
• Battle lines have the move distance of their slowest battle group.
• Battle groups moving through more than one type of terrain are limited to the shortest move distance shown for any of those terrain types. Battle groups with mixed troop types use the shortest move distance that would apply to any base in the battle group, even if that base is clear of the terrain. e.g. heavy foot backed by a rank of light foot move at 2 MU in rough terrain, even if only the rear rank of light foot is in the rough terrain.

I would suggest you refer to Maximum Move Distances - maybe even retitle the Paragraph as such...?
How about...
• If any part of any base of the battle group is in distance-reducing terrain at any stage of its move their MAXIMUM move distance is reduced for the whole of their move. As a result, sometimes battle groups can reach the edge of a piece of terrain but not enter it. e.g. if cavalry have moved at least 3 MU in the open and meet rough terrain, they have already moved their maximum rough terrain distance, so cannot enter it.
• Troops in column move at +1 MU along roads or through any terrain if the indicated move distance is less than their move distance in open terrain.
• Battle groups with mixed troop-types have the move distance of the slower type.
• Battle lines have the move distance of their slowest battle group.
• Battle groups moving through more than one type of terrain are limited to the shortest move distance shown for any of those terrain types. Battle groups with mixed troop types use the shortest move distance that would apply to any base in the battle group, even if that base is clear of the terrain. e.g. heavy foot backed by a rank of light foot move at 2 MU in rough terrain, even if only the rear rank of light foot is in the rough terrain.

A mute point as I think the example now describes what you mean perfectly - cheers.
PS. Do you need to clarify whether the reduction to their move extends to a possible 'Second Move' that phase or only effects them for a single move?