Issues from latest test game (Sicilians versus Indians)

[lawrenceg]

Issues from latest test game (My Sicilians versus Lance Flint’s Indians)

Observations:
After 4 hours we were both close to breaking, but would have needed at least 2 more turns to get those last AP. Not sure how many turns we got in. We started at 5-10 minutes each but slowed down a lot when it got to combat.

Crossbows are pretty nifty against elephants. However, we couldn’t find the rule that elephants count as 2 bases each for 1HP3B, so counted them as 1. I found it this morning in the glossary. Can’t it be fitted into the reference sheet?

Massed bowmen are pretty nifty against skirmishers.

1. A commander was with a battlegroup of LH that routed. Some of the LH bases left the table, so the BG was removed. The commander’s base itself did not leave the table. Should he have been removed with the BG? The rule is:

If a commander leaves the table (as a result as a result of evading or routing with a battlegroup), he is removed from play for the remainder of the game.

I think this probably means the commander’s base must actually leave the table, but Lance took it to mean that he just needed to be with a BG that left the table. (If any base leaves the table then the whole BG is removed, including any attached commander.)

2. An unattached commander moved within bowshot of enemy. According the rules he could stay there until the enemy moved. Only then did he have to move to join a BG. This enabled him to stay within command range of two BGs during the shooting phase. Not sure if this was intended.

3. Support shooting in impact: Does the entire rank shoot, or only bases directly behind bases that will fight in impact close combat? This made a difference of 3 dice in one combat.

4. Defensive spear charging bowmen. We were a bit surprised that the spearmen got no impact POA against bowmen. If they are net + against 1 rank of defensive spearmen (as in my half spear/half crossbow BG) shouldn’t they be on a + vs people with nothing? The extra shooting dice gave the bowmen quite an advantage in impact. The spearmen had the advantage in melee, which makes sense (they were Bow only, not bow/sword) .

I’m still a bit unhappy with defensive spear charging defensive spear on evens. You have stated that it was put in to prevent Mexican standoffs. IMO if a Mexican standoff is historical, (which it would be if Def Spear tactics did not involve charging) then it should be in the game. Armies with Def Spear have other troops to attack with, so the overall game would not be a stand off. Def Spear are there to fend off enemy attacks, not to attack. If the enemy are not going to attack them, they are doing their job, even if they themselves can’t attack. If you want to attack enemy Def Spear, use something other than Def Spear. If Def Spear were on a - charging Def Spear, then being on evens against defenceless bowmen would make a lot more sense.

I suggest removing "Defensive Spear Charging Defensive Spear" from the POAs as the simplest change.
Giving them net evens for 2 ranks charging 1 rank of defensive spear and + against foot with no impact capability would probably be better, but might be an unnecessary complication.

5. Disorder due to elephants:
The first point I must make here is that it took ages to find the section on disorder. Although disorder comes from a variety of causes, and has its effect in several phases, we found it eventually in the Terrain Appendix. The first place we looked was Cohesion Mechanism, the second place Movement Mechanism. Disorder due to elephants is described in the section on Special Effects. I think all the disorder rules should probably be in this section as they don’t fit neatly into any of the Mechanism sections. Certainly they should not be in an appendix, as they are a core mechanism.

Page 71 says "Knights, cataphracts, cavalry, light horse and chariots are DISORDERED if less than 1 base width from elephants or camelry.

On page 81 we have "If the a battle group’s formation could not function well due to its situation (such as terrain, part way through an interpenetration, or camelry or elephants) it is DISORDERED or SEVERELY DISORDERED and therefore vulnerable."
This suggests that disorder applies the battle group as a whole (pronoun "it" refers to "Battle group").

The bullet points under the table of disorder effects say "Only bases that are at least partly in the situation are affected" . This is perfectly clear. However, because the first column in the table is headed "Terrain Grade", Lance was certain that these bullet points only applied to disorder caused by terrain (not other causes). I think you would have said "terrain" instead of "situation" if that were the case. However, the table heading and the paragraph above are conducive to confusion.

6. Cheese contest.
I moved some knights up towards some bowmen. Lance moved some heavy weapon troops into some rough ground where they could intercept my knights. If I charged the HW troops, I’d be in the open on impact, but on conforming I’d be dragged into the rough. He thought that a bit cheesy. The distance was such that I could not have stepped forward into the bowmen.

However, I wheeled my knights to face the HW troops. This brought the other end of the knight BG close enough to the bow that a charge and step forward would contact them. After impact, I could not conform to either BG as it would have broken contact with the other one. So I saved myself from being pulled into the rough. Lance thought this a bit cheesy.

In his bound, he was able to conform to the knights, which pulled his HW troops out of the rough into the open. He thought that a bit cheesy.

Overall we both think that unrestricted wheeling before charging probably gives too much leeway (although in this case the wheel was a move and the charge was straight ahead next turn). However, it’s probably better to give the advantage to the charging player to encourage aggressive play.

7. In the non-conformed combat we weren’t entirely sure if the separate HW and Bow battle groups counted as "A line of bases counting as if in front edge combat" (hence no overlaps in the middle). From the geometry our intuitive opinion was that one Kn was in front edge contact with a HW, one Kn overlapped it (there was a bowmen base to his front but it was a long way off) and two other Kn fought bowmen they were in corner to front edge contact with as if in front edge combat. Initially the HW BG was separated from the bowmen by a large gap. After conforming, the HW were in front of some of the bowmen. At this stage I thought the knight that had been overlapping the HW would now be as if in front edge contact with a bowmen, although there was a gap due to other knights being stepped forward. In DBM it would have been an overlap. With hindsight I suspect that the bowmen should have come forward into contact with the knight (like a step forward).

8. Lance thinks Defensive Spearmen capability should be free and all poor troops should be cheaper. He also thinks knights are too powerful. I took out 4 BG of foot and probably would have got 1 of elephants too with 2 BG of 4 average knights.

[hammy]

8. Lance thinks Defensive Spearmen capability should be free and all poor troops should be cheaper. He also thinks knights are too powerful. I took out 4 BG of foot and probably would have got 1 of elephants too with 2 BG of 4 average knights.

Blimey...

My knights aren't that good. What were your knights fighting?

My experience of knights is that they tend to be rather fragile and once heavily involved can evaporate.

Hammy

[rbodleyscott]

8. Lance thinks Defensive Spearmen capability should be free and all poor troops should be cheaper. He also thinks knights are too powerful. I took out 4 BG of foot and probably would have got 1 of elephants too with 2 BG of 4 average knights.

Blimey...

My knights aren't that good. What were your knights fighting?

My experience of knights is that they tend to be rather fragile and once heavily involved can evaporate.

Hammy

I have to agree. My French Ordonnance Gendarmes were beaten up yesterday by a bunch of girly Seleucid Roman-style argyraspids.

[lawrenceg]

8. Lance thinks Defensive Spearmen capability should be free and all poor troops should be cheaper. He also thinks knights are too powerful. I took out 4 BG of foot and probably would have got 1 of elephants too with 2 BG of 4 average knights.

Blimey...

My knights aren't that good. What were your knights fighting?

My experience of knights is that they tend to be rather fragile and once heavily involved can evaporate.

Hammy

One BG beat unprotected MF Bow and Protected MF Heavy Weapon;
The other was uphill with a general fighting and beat two unprotected bow BG. When we stopped it was still uphill, 4 bases fighting 1 elephant BG (2 bases).

I've only played 3 games with knights on either side so far. This is the first time my knights have worked, in other games they have been useless. Lance creamed me with his knights in a previous game and has played a lot more games than me. I report his opinions without necessarily sharing them.

[hammy]

8. Lance thinks Defensive Spearmen capability should be free and all poor troops should be cheaper. He also thinks knights are too powerful. I took out 4 BG of foot and probably would have got 1 of elephants too with 2 BG of 4 average knights.

Blimey...

My knights aren't that good. What were your knights fighting?

My experience of knights is that they tend to be rather fragile and once heavily involved can evaporate.

Hammy

One BG beat unprotected MF Bow and Protected MF Heavy Weapon;
The other was uphill with a general fighting and beat two unprotected bow BG. When we stopped it was still uphill, 4 bases fighting 1 elephant BG (2 bases).

OK, MF bow with no support are in trouble against knights (and so they should be). MF heavy weapon are not that bad against knights as long as they hold in the impact phase. Once the impact is over it's an even fight.

Depending on the size of the knights BG I would be tempted to say that a BG of knights beating two BG's of enemy foot at the same time rolled reasonably well. The knights have a big bonus at impact and the bow are in trouble in melee too but there will be plenty of overlaps so even if they win the fights I would expect the knighst to lose bases.

The ones on the hill are a slightly diferent case. To be honest the hill hardly makes any difference as you can't be better than ++ but assuming 4 knights and two BG's of 8 bow with the knights in the middle my money would still be on the knights (just)

I've only played 3 games with knights on either side so far. This is the first time my knights have worked, in other games they have been useless. Lance creamed me with his knights in a previous game and has played a lot more games than me. I report his opinions without necessarily sharing them.

Fair enough, I was mainly asking because my experience of knights is that they are rather similar to elephants in some ways as they are very vulnerable to the death roll. I have held off (not lost the combat to) knightly charges with bow in the open on more than one occasion and if the bow pass the cohesion test when they lose the melee (which they will) the knights have to break off and suffer another volley of missiles.

I was really wondering if you were doing something different.

Hammy

[lawrenceg]

I was really wondering if you were doing something different.

Hammy

Yes, I was: rolling better dice.

[rbodleyscott]

1. A commander was with a battlegroup of LH that routed. Some of the LH bases left the table, so the BG was removed. The commander’s base itself did not leave the table. Should he have been removed with the BG? The rule is:

If a commander leaves the table (as a result as a result of evading or routing with a battlegroup), he is removed from play for the remainder of the game.

I think this probably means the commander’s base must actually leave the table, but Lance took it to mean that he just needed to be with a BG that left the table. (If any base leaves the table then the whole BG is removed, including any attached commander.)

If it was an initial rout move (or an evade move) he must rout/evade with the BG. He therefore leaves the table if they do.

I think this is reasonably logical without a wording change.

2. An unattached commander moved within bowshot of enemy. According the rules he could stay there until the enemy moved. Only then did he have to move to join a BG. This enabled him to stay within command range of two BGs during the shooting phase. Not sure if this was intended.

Maybe needs correcting.

3. Support shooting in impact: Does the entire rank shoot, or only bases directly behind bases that will fight in impact close combat? This made a difference of 3 dice in one combat.

Only the ones behind bases fighting in the impact phase. I think this needs a clarification.

[lawrenceg]

1. A commander was with a battlegroup of LH that routed. Some of the LH bases left the table, so the BG was removed. The commander’s base itself did not leave the table. Should he have been removed with the BG? The rule is:

If a commander leaves the table (as a result as a result of evading or routing with a battlegroup), he is removed from play for the remainder of the game.

I think this probably means the commander’s base must actually leave the table, but Lance took it to mean that he just needed to be with a BG that left the table. (If any base leaves the table then the whole BG is removed, including any attached commander.)

If it was an initial rout move (or an evade move) he must rout/evade with the BG. He therefore leaves the table if they do.

I think this is reasonably logical without a wording change.

My (wrong) interpretation was also reasonably logical without a wording change. You need it to be unambiguous, not just reasonably logical.

I suggest:

"If a commander is routing or evading with a battlegroup that leaves the table, he is removed from play for the remainder of the game. "

If it was an initial rout move (or an evade move) he must rout/evade with the BG. He therefore leaves the table if they do.

If the commander failed to rally routers in the JAP, would he still have to rout with them in the JAP?

[rbodleyscott]

I suggest:

"If a commander is routing or evading with a battlegroup that leaves the table, he is removed from play for the remainder of the game. "

Looks good to me, thanks Lawrence.

If the commander failed to rally routers in the JAP, would he still have to rout with them in the JAP?

No.

 A commander who attempts to rally a broken battle group does not have to rout with it if it fails the cohesion test.

------------------


BTW, the support shooting issue is covered in the impact phase dice chart:

1 dice per 2nd or 3rd rank base behind a base in combat (one rank only). Use Points of Advantage (POA) as if shooting.
(No dice against a flank or rear charge.)

[lawrenceg]

BTW, the support shooting issue is covered in the impact phase dice chart:

1 dice per 2nd or 3rd rank base behind a base in combat (one rank only). Use Points of Advantage (POA) as if shooting.
(No dice against a flank or rear charge.)

Thanks.

I find that quite a few apparent issues are caused by not being able to spot the text that covers them as you scan through in the heat of battle. Either it's in the main text when you look at the chart, or it's in the chart when you look at the main text, or it's there but you can't see for looking or occasionally in some place you would never expect it.

[hammy]

I was really wondering if you were doing something different.

Hammy

Yes, I was: rolling better dice.

Last night, two BG's of 4 superior heavily armoured knights each led by a TC into two BG's of 6/3 superior armoured legionaries with light foot archers also with generals fighting. One melee I won 5 hits to 4, disrupted the legionaries but didn't kill a base and the other melee I drew 4 hits each.

End result after the impact phase, both my knight BG's lost a base and both were disrupted when one of the generals died !*&^%$!£

Shortly thereafter both knight BG's were broken.

Knights are NOT super troops, not when I am roling the dice anyway.

Hammy

[lawrenceg]

[quote="hammy
Knights are NOT super troops, not when I am roling the dice anyway.

Hammy [/quote]

The knight thing is a bit of a distraction really.

Issues 4 and 5 have not drawn any comment yet:

4 was:

2 ranks of defensive spearmen charging a BG of front rank defensive spearmen, 2nd rank bowmen: chargers get + in impact.

2 ranks of defensive spearmen charging a BG of 2 ranks of bowmen: chargers get 0 in impact.


5 was a slight doubt about elephants disordering mounted applying only to the bases within the critical distance, not the whole BG.

[hammy]

Issues 4 and 5 have not drawn any comment yet:

4 was:

2 ranks of defensive spearmen charging a BG of front rank defensive spearmen, 2nd rank bowmen: chargers get + in impact.

2 ranks of defensive spearmen charging a BG of 2 ranks of bowmen: chargers get 0 in impact.

I think you have a point in this specific situation, especially with the bowmen getting overhead shooting. OK, once melee starts the spear should be looking OK but the impact thing is rather odd.

5 was a slight doubt about elephants disordering mounted applying only to the bases within the critical distance, not the whole BG.

I have always taken this as only bases within the critical distance. The impact of this is that elephants don't have a significant impact on your own mounted as two disordered bases in the BG next to the elephants doesn't make any difference but the BG facing the elephants (assuming it is mounted) will definitely loose at least one dice.

Hammy

[rbodleyscott]

4 was:

2 ranks of defensive spearmen charging a BG of front rank defensive spearmen, 2nd rank bowmen: chargers get + in impact.

2 ranks of defensive spearmen charging a BG of 2 ranks of bowmen: chargers get 0 in impact.

Your comment has been noted. A slight anomaly perhaps, but probably not one of sufficient importance to cause us to change (complicate) the POAs.

As previously noted, the DSp vs DSp POA is purely to reduce Mexican standoffs. We have made a policy decision to try to avoid them as being bad for the game.

5 was a slight doubt about elephants disordering mounted applying only to the bases within the critical distance, not the whole BG.

The ones within distance.

[lawrenceg]

Your comment has been noted. A slight anomaly perhaps, but probably not one of sufficient importance to cause us to change (complicate) the POAs.

Change impact POA for

"Defensive Sp charging Defensive Sp"

to

"Defensive Sp charging >1 rank of Defensive Sp" ?

That wouldn't be too complicated, would it?

[rbodleyscott]

Your comment has been noted. A slight anomaly perhaps, but probably not one of sufficient importance to cause us to change (complicate) the POAs.

Change impact POA for

"Defensive Sp charging Defensive Sp"

to

"Defensive Sp charging >1 rank of Defensive Sp" ?

That wouldn't be too complicated, would it?

Will put it to the team.