issus from test game Kyrenean Greek versus Tartar

[lawrenceg]

Test game: Kyrenean Greek versus Tartar

I had the Greeks:
5 x 8 Hoplites HF prot ave undrilled O-spear
2 x 4 Heavy Chariot superior undrilled LS
1 x 4 Xystophoroi Cavalry Armoured drlled superior lance sword
3 x assorted LF
1 x 6 Thureophoroi MF prot ave drilled O-spear

Lance Flint had the Tartars
11 x LH superior unpro bow sword
3 x Cavalry superior unpro? Bow sword
3 x assorted LF

He had the initiative, chose steppe and picked 4 optional open areas. One of my Brush was removed. A broken ground and brush both ended against one flank edge, where they did me more harm than good by disordering and slowing my hoplites, while offering no significant protection for my LF against his LH.

We played about 10 turns in about 3.5 hours. At the end I had 5 units broken, , three of which were destroyed when they failed to fully burst through friends. All the shooting was by skirmishers or single rank cavalry. I also had one unit of LF fragmented, which had survived 3 rounds of melee with LH. This was the only close combat in the game. Lance had one BG of LH fragmented due to my shooting. This was the only damage I did him in the entire game. My foremost unit was still 12 MU from his table edge, so no real chance of pushing something off the table and even that unit was broken by LF archers and handgunners shooting before the end.

I get the impression that protected foot just can’t stand up to shooting. From previous experience, armoured seems to be OK.

Issues

1. a. A commander was forced to become a marker on a base in a BG. Was his command range now measured from the edges of that base? We assumed yes, or we could have measured from the edge of the marker (in which case how big can the marker be?).

b. Once the commander was a marker, we assumed he stayed as such until he moved separately from the BG. There was no rule to say that he automatically popped out again when space was available.

2. If a BG charges and its target evades, exposing a new undeclared target in range, do you still have to roll a chargers VMD (and possibly stop short)?

3. If shock foot are facing both foot and mounted do they still have to check for involuntary charges? I think they probably do, but it's not entirely clear. I could argue that I don't need to test to prevent a charge on mounted and the presence of an incidental foot target makes no difference.

4. Routers failed to fully interpenetrate an unattached commander. We couldn’t find a rule telling us how to handle this situation. It seems only attached commanders can be displaced.

5. Turning 90 and interpenetrating:
HHHHHHHLLLLL
H is hoplites facing up. L is 5 LF in column facing right. The LF want to turn 90 to face up and advance.
The hoplites obstruct the 90 degree turn.
Do the hoplites prevent the turn, or is the turn-advance allowed as an interpenetration?

6. I had a unit of 7 with three in the front rank and 4 in the rear (after evading). On reforming, is there anything to stop me placing the extra base in the front rank and then shifting a rear rank base behind it? This was useful because it gave me a shooting dice.

7. One BG was shot at by two BG roughly in front of it but overlapping both ends and not parallel to it, also by a BG behind its flank and somewhat behind, also at a funny angle. The target BG routed. Which angle should I bisect to determine the direction of rout?

8. Sequence of charge and evade. In sequence of play it is evades then charges. On page 33 if there is more than one charge the active player decides in what order they are actioned. Not clear if the active player decides the order of charges or also evades. Not entirely clear if each charge and all its responses are actioned before the next charge, or all evades then all charges.

9. Do routers draw fire in shooting priority? (looks like they do)

10. My Cretan superior LF could not claim rear support from the average HF hoplites.


Comment from Lance:

Army lists seem generally to control BG size sensibly, but some armies have the option for small "must have " BGs such as the 4 handgunners in the Tartar list: cheap, hard to kill and very useful with the -1 on cohesion test for shooting.

[rbodleyscott]

He had the initiative, chose steppe and picked 4 optional open areas.

In fact he can only have 2 optional open areas, as the 2 compulsories count towards the total.

The total pieces of any type, together with any compulsory features of that type, cannot exceed the maximum of that type.

[lawrenceg]

He had the initiative, chose steppe and picked 4 optional open areas.

In fact he can only have 2 optional open areas, as the 2 compulsories count towards the total.

The total pieces of any type, together with any compulsory features of that type, cannot exceed the maximum of that type.

Well, they didn't stop me putting any of my non-open areas down anyway. I was just glad he didn't choose three minimum size rough going to prevent me putting them as larger ones.

[rbodleyscott]

1. a. A commander was forced to become a marker on a base in a BG. Was his command range now measured from the edges of that base? We assumed yes, or we could have measured from the edge of the marker (in which case how big can the marker be?).

I think you did it correctly.

b. Once the commander was a marker, we assumed he stayed as such until he moved separately from the BG. There was no rule to say that he automatically popped out again when space was available.

Agreed.

2. If a BG charges and its target evades, exposing a new undeclared target in range, do you still have to roll a chargers VMD (and possibly stop short)?

If a battle group is revealed and can now be contacted due to friends evading or breaking and routing, it becomes a target of the charge

The chargers now move their charge move, adjusting the move distance by a VMD roll if all their charge targets evaded.

My interpretation of these 2 rules would be that therefore they don't roll.

3. If shock foot are facing both foot and mounted do they still have to check for involuntary charges? I think they probably do, but it's not entirely clear. I could argue that I don't need to test to prevent a charge on mounted and the presence of an incidental foot target makes no difference.

As the rules presently stand, they do. You could argue as above, but it wouldn't be logical. The rules specifically say they must test to avoid charging foot.l They say nothing about not having to test not to charge mounted (except they don't say that they do have to test).

(Whether they should be allowed not to is another issue).

4. Routers failed to fully interpenetrate an unattached commander. We couldn’t find a rule telling us how to handle this situation. It seems only attached commanders can be displaced.

Generals are supposed to occupy no actual space, so although this situation is not specifically covered by the rules, the spirit of the rules would have him shunted out of the way.

However, even if this was not so, this is a permitted interpenetration, not a burst through, so the routers would not be destroyed.

5. Turning 90 and interpenetrating:
HHHHHHHLLLLL
H is hoplites facing up. L is 5 LF in column facing right. The LF want to turn 90 to face up and advance.
The hoplites obstruct the 90 degree turn.
Do the hoplites prevent the turn, or is the turn-advance allowed as an interpenetration?

Good question. As they can interpenetrate in any direction, I suppose it is.

6. I had a unit of 7 with three in the front rank and 4 in the rear (after evading). On reforming, is there anything to stop me placing the extra base in the front rank and then shifting a rear rank base behind it?

Not that I can see.

7. One BG was shot at by two BG roughly in front of it but overlapping both ends and not parallel to it, also by a BG behind its flank and somewhat behind, also at a funny angle. The target BG routed. Which angle should I bisect to determine the direction of rout?

Decide between yourselves or call the umpire! We are trying to keep the wording of the rules simple. It is impossible to do so and tie down situations like this exactly.

8. Sequence of charge and evade. In sequence of play it is evades then charges. On page 33 if there is more than one charge the active player decides in what order they are actioned. Not clear if the active player decides the order of charges or also evades. Not entirely clear if each charge and all its responses are actioned before the next charge, or all evades then all charges.

The former unless they interact. Once again this is something that we leave to the "common sense" of the players to avoid tangling ourselves in knots. If you cannot agree, call the umpire. If you cannot agree in a friendly game......

9. Do routers draw fire in shooting priority? (looks like they do)

It would make sense if they did, and they probably do. However, if you wanted the full half hour argument, you could argue that they are not a legitimate target because "There is no explicit shooting or close combat against, or by, broken troops. "

It all depends on how you choose to interpret the significance of "explicit".

10. My Cretan superior LF could not claim rear support from the average HF hoplites.

We can live with that.

Comment from Lance:

Army lists seem generally to control BG size sensibly, but some armies have the option for small "must have " BGs such as the 4 handgunners in the Tartar list: cheap, hard to kill and very useful with the -1 on cohesion test for shooting.

A valid point, but how else could they be dealt with? Think of it as a plus point for that army list. All (most) lists have plus and minus points.

[lawrenceg]

8. Sequence of charge and evade. In sequence of play it is evades then charges. On page 33 if there is more than one charge the active player decides in what order they are actioned. Not clear if the active player decides the order of charges or also evades. Not entirely clear if each charge and all its responses are actioned before the next charge, or all evades then all charges.

The former unless they interact. Once again this is something that we leave to the "common sense" of the players to avoid tangling ourselves in knots. If you cannot agree, call the umpire. If you cannot agree in a friendly game......

Not clear which of my conjectures "the former" refers to, but if they don't interact, it's not an issue anyway. The question is what happens if they do interact.

In our case they did interact and an evader could have ended up in the path of a new charger (that it was not a target of initially) depending on the order.

The point is, you have written some rules to govern order of charge and evade, but they are not clear. If you wish to leave it to common sense then delete those rules. If you had some sequence in mind when you wrote them, then make it clearer.

I'm guessing you meant:

All responses to being charged are executed before any charges, in an order determined by the active player.
Then all charges are executed in an order determined by the active player.

This is shorter and clearer than what you currently have. It would fit in the turn sequence and probably allow you to delete the whole paragraph "SEQUENCE OF CHARGES AND RESPONSES"

You might have meant:

Charges are actioned in an order chosen by the active player. Responses to each charge are actioned before it, but after any previous charges. The order of responses is chosen by the active player.

[shall]

Lots of interesting stuff in this stream thanks lawrence.

On several fronts I think we need to keep a commitment to refining on a webnsite and not clog up the document too much with fine detail as it will lose its appeal to the less rigorous mlarketplace pkaying for fun. I therefore see the book as the core rules for 80% of players and the core rules plus a good website containing oficial interps the adeded bit for the pros.

That said where a few words can make things clearer then we should do it.

With that in mind as a backdrop my thoughts on issues above as follows (only those not covered conclusively by RBS here):

8. Sequence of charge and evade. In sequence of play it is evades then charges. On page 33 if there is more than one charge the active player decides in what order they are actioned. Not clear if the active player decides the order of charges or also evades. Not entirely clear if each charge and all its responses are actioned before the next charge, or all evades then all charges.

I have always played it that the player charging chooses the order of charge - responses are done for those immediately and the charge is done. Then on to the next one etc. Then all combat at the end of it. This is to me what the above words mean, although in the turn sequence we perhaps imply tat one does all evades before any charges and moved. Now whether this is the best interp is another matter and one for us to taake back and debate a little.

In the way I have used you could get 2 evades occasonally for 1 BG - e.g. a BG evades in front of another charge and then evades again away from that. I haven't had it happen in practice but have seen a couple of times that it was a possibility. So in your game you evqders would have evaded twiec to get away.

We are finding the occassional a rare situation which we haven't had before and need to go back and agree as authors what we want to happen before giving a final answer I think. But i think this will happen in the Comppro marlet whatever we do hence my outlook above. Will revert soon.

The chargers now move their charge move, adjusting the move distance by a VMD roll if all their charge targets evaded.

My interpretation of these 2 rules would be that therefore they don't roll.

Ruleless in almohad country at present but isn' t this covered. I thought we said they rolled if all targets evade. As at the time of them moving all targets haven't evaded they don't roll. I think this is what RBS is saying. Each move made is made as at the time of lifting the figures if you see what I mean.

5. Turning 90 and interpenetrating:
HHHHHHHLLLLL
H is hoplites facing up. L is 5 LF in column facing right. The LF want to turn 90 to face up and advance.
The hoplites obstruct the 90 degree turn.
Do the hoplites prevent the turn, or is the turn-advance allowed as an interpenetration?

Good question. As they can interpenetrate in any direction, I suppose it is.

Not sure this is really covered explicitly in the rulebook at present. RBS view not unreasonable but I personally would have ruled that they couldn't turn without you moving the Hs first to make space - so another one for us to agree before final fix.

Si

[lawrenceg]

In the way I have used you could get 2 evades occasonally for 1 BG - e.g. a BG evades in front of another charge and then evades again away from that. I haven't had it happen in practice but have seen a couple of times that it was a possibility. So in your game you evqders would have evaded twiec to get away.

The idea of doing two evades never even occured to me. I assumed that if you evaded one charge and another charge caught you, it was the same as if the original charge had caught you.

[rbodleyscott]

In the way I have used you could get 2 evades occasonally for 1 BG - e.g. a BG evades in front of another charge and then evades again away from that. I haven't had it happen in practice but have seen a couple of times that it was a possibility. So in your game you evqders would have evaded twiec to get away.

The idea of doing two evades never even occured to me. I assumed that if you evaded one charge and another charge caught you, it was the same as if the original charge had caught you.

I agree with Lawrence. (Sorry Simon).

The only reasons for doing the charges (and their responses) sequentially rather than simultaneously are convenience and the physical impossibility of doing otherwise. All responses can be assumed to be simultaneous and all charge moves can be assumed to be simultaneous. That is the reason for the order in the main "sequence of play" table.

However, where there is no interaction whatsoever, there is no reason not to do responses and charge moves for each section of the table before moving on to the next, to speed up play.

This is certainly one for web-page clarification rather than more tortuous rules writing. The neophytes really aren't going to care about the nuances of this issue.

[lawrenceg]

In the way I have used you could get 2 evades occasonally for 1 BG - e.g. a BG evades in front of another charge and then evades again away from that. I haven't had it happen in practice but have seen a couple of times that it was a possibility. So in your game you evqders would have evaded twiec to get away.

The idea of doing two evades never even occured to me. I assumed that if you evaded one charge and another charge caught you, it was the same as if the original charge had caught you.

I agree with Lawrence. (Sorry Simon).

The only reasons for doing the charges (and their responses) sequentially rather than simultaneously are convenience and the physical impossibility of doing otherwise. All responses can be assumed to be simultaneous and all charge moves can be assumed to be simultaneous. That is the reason for the order in the main "sequence of play" table.

However, where there is no interaction whatsoever, there is no reason not to do responses and charge moves for each section of the table before moving on to the next, to speed up play.

This is certainly one for web-page clarification rather than more tortuous rules writing. The neophytes really aren't going to care about the nuances of this issue.

All responses to being charged are executed before any charges, in an order determined by the active player.
Then all charges are executed in an order determined by the active player.

hardly qualifies as "tortuous rules writing". It's less tortuous than the existing wording, the meaning of which even the authors don't agree on.

[rbodleyscott]

All responses to being charged are executed before any charges, in an order determined by the active player.
Then all charges are executed in an order determined by the active player.

hardly qualifies as "tortuous rules writing". It's less tortuous than the existing wording, the meaning of which even the authors don't agree on.

True, but I don't like the idea of forcing players to do all the responses across the entire table before doing any of the charges. It may be tidy, but it will usually be a very inefficient (time-wise) and unnatural seeming way of doing it.

[markm]

True, but I don't like the idea of forcing players to do all the responses across the entire table before doing any of the charges. It may be tidy, but it will usually be a very inefficient (time-wise) and unnatural seeming way of doing it.

This is exactly how I've always played it (probably because it's similar to WAB). It is no longer or un-natural than any other way!

[lawrenceg]

All responses to being charged are executed before any charges, in an order determined by the active player.
Then all charges are executed in an order determined by the active player.

hardly qualifies as "tortuous rules writing". It's less tortuous than the existing wording, the meaning of which even the authors don't agree on.

True, but I don't like the idea of forcing players to do all the responses across the entire table before doing any of the charges. It may be tidy, but it will usually be a very inefficient (time-wise) and unnatural seeming way of doing it.

Perhaps I was rash to assume that people would soon work out that it was quicker to do it the natural, efficient way when there is no interaction - much as we do with post-melee morale tests and death rolls.

You could take out the whole paragraph on "Sequencing charges and responses" and simply rely on the turn sequence at the back, which is perfectly clear.

The only issue then is the order of evades that interfere with each other and of charges that interfere with each other. I think if you said nothing at all on that subject most players would assume that the owning player decided the order (which seems perfectly reasonable to me). But there is room to specify something in the turn sequence table if youreally want to.

Whatever you do, you surely can't leave in a paragraph whose meaning the authors don't agree on.

[rbodleyscott]

Whatever you do, you surely can't leave in a paragraph whose meaning the authors don't agree on.

I expect that Simon will re-evaluate his position.

[lawrenceg]

Whatever you do, you surely can't leave in a paragraph whose meaning the authors don't agree on.

I expect that Simon will re-evaluate his position.

Simon, and, in due course, half the people who bought the game.

[shall]

I am perfectly happy to have only 1 evade - but the words we have don't actually specify either way as far as I recall. In all my 50+ games the issue has never arisen.

I shall take a look tomorrow when rule equipped!!

We don't have to agree on everything - but its good to see when even we can interpret an unusual siutaiton differently.

Si

[rbodleyscott]

3. If shock foot are facing both foot and mounted do they still have to check for involuntary charges? I think they probably do, but it's not entirely clear. I could argue that I don't need to test to prevent a charge on mounted and the presence of an incidental foot target makes no difference.

How about this:

4) P29 (Exceptions to shock troops testing not to charge)

However, shock troops will not charge without orders (and are therefore not required to take a CMT to prevent charging) in the following circumstances:
• If their move* could end even partly in terrain that would disorder or severely disorder them.
• If they are medium foot starting wholly in uneven, rough or difficult terrain and the move* could end even partly in open terrain.
• If they are foot defending fortifications or a riverbank.
• If they are foot whose move* could contact or be intercepted by mounted.
• If their move* could end in contact with a fortification, elephants or a riverbank.
• If they are fragmented (they cannot charge).

We appreciate that this allows them not to test if they would make side to side contact but consider this a minor issue not worth excepting.

[sagji]

However, shock troops will not charge without orders (and are therefore not required to take a CMT to prevent charging) in the following circumstances:
• If their move* could end even partly in terrain that would disorder or severely disorder them.

Reword as "If their move* could, even partially, enter ..." so that troops already in the terrain aren't limited

• If they are medium foot starting wholly in uneven, rough or difficult terrain and the move* could end even partly in open terrain.
• If they are foot defending fortifications or a riverbank.
• If they are foot whose move* could contact or be intercepted by mounted.

Should ignore interception by LH, and possibly cavalry without sword

• If their move* could end in contact with a fortification, elephants or a riverbank.
• If they are fragmented (they cannot charge).

For completeness add broken.

Also
• If their move* could intercepted by non-skirmishers that would contact their flank or rear.

[rbodleyscott]

However, shock troops will not charge without orders (and are therefore not required to take a CMT to prevent charging) in the following circumstances:
• If their move* could end even partly in terrain that would disorder or severely disorder them.

Reword as "If their move* could, even partially, enter ..." so that troops already in the terrain aren't limited

It isn't a limitation - just an exemption from testing not to charge.

• If they are medium foot starting wholly in uneven, rough or difficult terrain and the move* could end even partly in open terrain.
• If they are foot defending fortifications or a riverbank.
• If they are foot whose move* could contact or be intercepted by mounted.

Should ignore interception by LH, and possibly cavalry without sword

LH cannot intercept non-skirmishers anyway.

Also
• If their move* could intercepted by non-skirmishers that would contact their flank or rear.

Perhaps.

[lawrenceg]

However, shock troops will not charge without orders (and are therefore not required to take a CMT to prevent charging) in the following circumstances:
• If their move* could end even partly in terrain that would disorder or severely disorder them.

Reword as "If their move* could, even partially, enter ..." so that troops already in the terrain aren't limited

I prefer RBS original. If they are already disordered by terrain they will be more concerned with sorting themselves out than charging. They can still charge voluntarily.

• If they are medium foot starting wholly in uneven, rough or difficult terrain and the move* could end even partly in open terrain.
• If they are foot defending fortifications or a riverbank.
• If they are foot whose move* could contact or be intercepted by mounted.

Should ignore interception by LH, and possibly cavalry without sword

LH cannot intercept non-skirmishers anyway. And cavalry even without swordmen ability will often have the advantage at impact, so I'd stick with RBS original wording.
This change has the additional benefit that you can't now cause shock foot to charge your lancers by putting some LF in front of them (and similar cheese). So I wholeheartedly approve of it.

• If their move* could end in contact with a fortification, elephants or a riverbank.
• If they are fragmented (they cannot charge).

For completeness add broken.

Also
• If their move* could intercepted by non-skirmishers that would contact their flank or rear.

Wouldn't bother with this suggestion as it is usually advantageous to charge in this situation (otherwise they charge you in front and flank simultaneously and you are fighting in two directions.) And it is natural for shock troops to try to fight their way out with an unordered pre-emptive charge.