Taking casualties

[gelin]

Hello all

BG "a" fights 2 enemy BGs "x" and "v"

xxvvv
xxvvv
aaaa
aaaa

1) BG a loses the combat from v. A front rank base in contact with v is removed. Can a base come from the rear ranks of those bases fighting x to fill the gap of the removed base or come as rear rank of the base moved to the now front rank ?

2) BG a loses combat from both x and v, with v inflicting more hits. Casualty is removed from the front rank in contact with v. an a base come from the rear ranks of those bases fighting x to fill the gap of the removed base or come as rear rank of the base moved to the now front rank ?

[Robert241167]

Hi there.

Whether you are fighting 1 BG or 2 makes no difference.

You remove a front rank base in contact with the BG that did the most damage.

You can then replace that front rank base with any back rank base regardless of where it is in the back rank.

Rob

[gelin]

Hi there.

Whether you are fighting 1 BG or 2 makes no difference.

You remove a front rank base in contact with the BG that did the most damage.

You can then replace that front rank base with any back rank base regardless of where it is in the back rank.

Rob

Thank you for the reply

Even if the rear ranks are contributing poas? For example if the aa group are spears or pikes? I dont have the rules with me but arent the second ranks considered as "front ranks" when fighting in melee?

[gozerius]

The front ranks are the front ranks. second ranks fight using the same POAs as front ranks. When replacing a lost base the order of precedence is:
1) any nonfront rank base
2) any front rank base not in close combat
3) any other front rank base
When replacing a base with a front rank base the BG must as much as possible maintain contact with all enemy BGs in contact and may not create a gap.

[gelin]

The front ranks are the front ranks. second ranks fight using the same POAs as front ranks. When replacing a lost base the order of precedence is:
1) any nonfront rank base
2) any front rank base not in close combat
3) any other front rank base
When replacing a base with a front rank base the BG must as much as possible maintain contact with all enemy BGs in contact and may not create a gap.

But this is not a clear answer in the my example.

Can second rank bases fighting another BG, be used as casualty of a base fighting other BGs or be used to fill/shuffle as second ranks maintaing thus a poa that would otherwise be lost?

Is this order correct?:
casualty front rank taken off table
second rank behind the casualty shuffles and becomes front rank
second rank from elswhere in the BG (already fighting as second rank with a BG other than the one causing the casualty) shuffles behind the old second-now front- rank base

other case
casualty front rank taken off table
second rank from elswhere in the BG (already fighting as second rank with a BG other than the one causing the casualty) shuffles in the place of the removed base

Are the above cases legal?

[gozerius]

There is no restriction on which non front rank base is used to replace a front rank casualty.
In most cases it does not matter, since most BGs will be a homogenous troop type. In the case of a mixed BG your choice could be influenced by whether you had additional close combat type bases available or have only missile troops to fill in. Still, it's your choice.

[gelin]

There is no restriction on which non front rank base is used to replace a front rank casualty.

Therefore the relative position of the base used to replace a lost base is irrelevant to the BG from which the casualty was caused.

In most cases it does not matter, since most BGs will be a homogenous troop type. In the case of a mixed BG your choice could be influenced by whether you had additional close combat type bases available or have only missile troops to fill in. Still, it's your choice.

I think that it matters in many cases (eg spears or pikes).

[philqw78]

Therefore the relative position of the base used to replace a lost base is irrelevant to the BG from which the casualty was caused..

Completely

[gozerius]

I think I know what you are getting at. There are rules that do restrict feeding bases into and expanding a melee if they already are contributing dice or POAs. That is a seperate event from replacing casualties and does not apply here.

[hazelbark]

But this is not a clear answer in the my example.

Can second rank bases fighting another BG, be used as casualty of a base fighting other BGs or be used to fill/shuffle as second ranks maintaing thus a poa that would otherwise be lost?

YES. Although I admit at first I thought no.

rules say:
Non-front rank bases must be used if any are available, and can be from any part of the battle group.

[grahambriggs]

But this is not a clear answer in the my example.

Can second rank bases fighting another BG, be used as casualty of a base fighting other BGs or be used to fill/shuffle as second ranks maintaing thus a poa that would otherwise be lost?

YES. Although I admit at first I thought no.

rules say:
Non-front rank bases must be used if any are available, and can be from any part of the battle group.

That is correct, you can take a second rank base from anywhere. So if a front rank base in contact with V is removed, you can move one of the rear ranks of those bases fighting x if you want to.

Bear in mind that the BG will still need to be in formation (there are some exceptions to that). Your example does not cover this so let's say BG a has a third rank of three bases:

aaaa
aaaa
aaa

When a front rank casualty is lost, you can use any of the second or third rank bases to fill the gap. If you use a second rank base, you'll need to shuffle forward a third rank base to full that gap. So, if "X" is the missing base:

aaaX
aaaa
aaa

fill in from a any rear rank:

aaaa
aXaa
aaa

Illegal formation so shuffle a third rank in:

aaaa
aaaa
aXa

In most combats, it doesn't matter who you fill the gap with. In some it does have a bearing - spears, pikes.

[Polkovnik]

A connected thought - if a BG of legionaries with LF archer support (say 4 +2) is fighting an elephant BG and loses a base, the best base to replace it with would seem to be one of the LF. No dice would be lost and the rank with the LF in front would now be on even POA rather than -POA.

[philqw78]

Brilliant

Some may call it cheesy though, spoilsports

[gozerius]

So then you win, pursue and hit something other than elephants. There is no reform because you are in a valid formation. That file is likely (--) at impact, contributes only one die. Nice trade.

[gelin]

So then you win, pursue and hit something other than elephants. There is no reform because you are in a valid formation. That file is likely (--) at impact, contributes only one die. Nice trade.

Unless it is the last BG you need to win a game or there are no enemy BGs around.

This rule is at least peculiar bearing in mind reality.
For example it allows the last files of a pike phalanx already engaged to their front against different enemy troops (lets say legionaries and cavalry) to take casualties from a completety different position that the one having trouble (bearing in mind the rounds in tabletop wargame represent simultaneus events).

It also allows cheese since you can elect to take bases from somewhere you dont need them (however still engaged in melee) and use them against an opponent that is supposed to be chopping his way in.

Fine as a game mechanic, but realistic? Not so much

[philqw78]

Fine as a game mechanic, but realistic? Not so much

How realistic is rectangular bases representing armies of antiquity.

Or you could get a few decipherable paragraphs of rules to tell you exactly where they have to come from when a BG is not conformed, fighting more than 1 BG, has more than 1 troop type, is fighting in 2 or more directions, is in orb, loses a casualty from shooting whilst in melee, etc.

I prefer the simplicity as it is, which isn't that simple.

[grahambriggs]

The rule doesn't make much difference in practice and simplifies the game. If a pike block is 4 deep and loses a bases, it was normally fighting someone tough. Losing a base is bad news then no matter how much you shuffle.

I suspect the authors thought that the simplicity was worth it. Plus they can always use the defence that the BG is a group of units so the mechanism represents local reserves. doesn't bear close examination, of course.

[gelin]

Fine as a game mechanic, but realistic? Not so much

How realistic is rectangular bases representing armies of antiquity.

Or you could get a few decipherable paragraphs of rules to tell you exactly where they have to come from when a BG is not conformed, fighting more than 1 BG, has more than 1 troop type, is fighting in 2 or more directions, is in orb, loses a casualty from shooting whilst in melee, etc.

I prefer the simplicity as it is, which isn't that simple.

Yes agreed. However i am not reffering to the mechanic (which is ok) but to the "look and feel" of it.
On the other hand of course, Graham has a point, so it seems that i would have to live with it

[ShrubMiK]

Interesting, this is news to me!

I don't think it is just a relevant issue for pikes and spears though.

Let's say I am a BG armed with any weapon, fighting 2 BGS even of exactly the same type and quality, and it starts off as a perfectly even fight (aise from the slight advantage of being 2 smaller BGs against one large BG, which we'll ignore here).

In the impact phase I cause 4 hits to each enemy BG, and receive 3 hits from one of themand no hits from the other in return. The Dice God is very good to me!

The enemy has to roll for both losing BGs, passes both death rolls, but fails the cohesion test for the Bg that inflicted no hits. The Dice God is a bit pants, to be honest, but I'll settle for the crumbs!

I have no test to take, but fail the death roll. Actually, the Dice God hates me!

So where should I lose a second rank base? Probably against the BG that caused me no hits. My reasoning being that it's still a more-or-less even fight. If I can knock out one of the opposing BGs quickly before I take too much more damage myself, I can likely overwhelm the remaining enemy with numbers. Wherever I choose to lose the base I will have the same number of dice and same POAs in melee, but I want to concentrate as much damage as possible on the enemy I am most likely to be able to defeat.

Okay, a contrived example, but the point remains...it's frequently important to think about trying to do as much damage as possible where it is most likely to produce a significant effect, and this is just as much a considering when removing bases as it is when deciding where to apply lost dice due to disruption etc.

And it raises another question in my mind, not sure what the rules have to say about this...what happens if I want to wait and see how the enemy gets on with tests and death rolls before deciding where I replace my lost front rank base from?

Now you can argue this is good for gameplay; historically realistic; etc. etc; but I don't really have an opinion on that. If that's the RAW, fine. But I would say I don't think it's hard or overly complicating of the game to have a rule that says if a front rank base is lost, if there are any bases behind it they simply shuffle forward to fill the gap. That's basically how I have always played it, and I've never noticed an opponent do any different either.

[bbotus]

................And it raises another question in my mind, not sure what the rules have to say about this...what happens if I want to wait and see how the enemy gets on with tests and death rolls before deciding where I replace my lost front rank base from? ..............

Page 116, 7th bullet says that if both players must remove bases, the active player does so second. And page 115 says cohesion tests must be taken before the effect of the death roll. So does the Full Turn Sequence Chart on page 168. So you can only wait to see which bases he removes if you are the active player. All the rest is basically simultaneous.

Hope that helps.