More playing, more questions :)

[moncholee]

Hello, I have had some more games last week and we found no answer to some situations.

1- What happens to a general fighting in a BG that autobreaks?

2- Do BGs that were fighting against a BG that autobreaks have to pursue?

3- What is the current state of the pursuing rule? Can you make a CMT to avoid pursuing? Do quality rerolls apply?

4- We had a BG of four bases (in a single row) charging three enemy BG due to stepping forward in an angle. 2 bases fought one BG and the other 2 bases one BG each. In the manoeuvre phase, conforming to the enemy would cause the charging BG to fight only two of the three enemy BGs, due to sliding and so. Is that possible? We thought it wasn´t and continued fighting offset.

5- Imagine a 4 frontage BG charging a 3 frontage one, making legal contact with its 4 front rank bases. Does it throw 8 dice against his opponent 6? Conforming to enemy comes later, at the manoeuvre phase, but it seems not mandatory in impact phase.

Also, on Saturday we played four games in a single day and noticed the following:

1- English Longbowmen are excellent shooters, they get no - POAs so always shoot at least at 4s. Anyway, I thought stakes would be more dangerous to mounted. Knights charging longbows with stakes both impact the enemy at 4s

2- Elite legionaries wiped out a Carthaginian army in a frontal engagement against superior armoured spearmen. They are really powerful against foot. Even killed Anibal!!

3- Skirmishers can´t protect the flank of other troops as their restricted area is ignored by non-skirmishers. Even more, as LF can´t charge non-skirmishers, those enemy non-skirmishers can turn and offer their flank or rear to them without any concern. Shouldn´t LF be able to charge flank or rear of non-skirmishers, maybe after passing a CMT?

4- Seeing a Spartan army with 40 hoplites (plus support troops) is scary. And it makes a viable army.

Thank you.

[rbodleyscott]

1- What happens to a general fighting in a BG that autobreaks?

An autobroken BG routs as normal. It is not removed until the end of the JAP. The general routs with it once.

2- Do BGs that were fighting against a BG that autobreaks have to pursue?

Yes, the autobroken Bg is not destroyed until the end of the JAP - i.e. after 2 rout moves.

3- What is the current state of the pursuing rule? Can you make a CMT to avoid pursuing?

Only if you are of a troop type that is normally permitted to do so, or if you would hit fresh enemy non-skirmishers. All the current amendments are in the "Changes since 6.0" thread,

Do quality rerolls apply?

Yes.

4- We had a BG of four bases (in a single row) charging three enemy BG due to stepping forward in an angle. 2 bases fought one BG and the other 2 bases one BG each. In the manoeuvre phase, conforming to the enemy would cause the charging BG to fight only two of the three enemy BGs, due to sliding and so. Is that possible? We thought it wasn´t and continued fighting offset.

You were correct.

5- Imagine a 4 frontage BG charging a 3 frontage one, making legal contact with its 4 front rank bases. Does it throw 8 dice against his opponent 6? Conforming to enemy comes later, at the manoeuvre phase, but it seems not mandatory in impact phase.

No, both sides always fight with the same (lower) number of bases in the impact phase. Therefore in this case both fight with 6 dice.

1- English Longbowmen are excellent shooters, they get no - POAs so always shoot at least at 4s. Anyway, I thought stakes would be more dangerous to mounted. Knights charging longbows with stakes both impact the enemy at 4s

No they don't. The stakes both cancel the knights' lancers POA and give the longbowen a POA for defending fortifications. Thus the knights are on - (5s) and the bows are on + (4s). In addition the bows get extra dice (at 5s if the knights are heavily armoured) for support shooting.

3- Skirmishers can´t protect the flank of other troops as their restricted area is ignored by non-skirmishers. Even more, as LF can´t charge non-skirmishers, those enemy non-skirmishers can turn and offer their flank or rear to them without any concern. Shouldn´t LF be able to charge flank or rear of non-skirmishers, maybe after passing a CMT?

No. Foot skirmishers really weren't equipped to fight hand-to-hand with non-skirmishers. In DBM when skirmishers are in contact it represents them shooting at close range, not mixing it with hand-to-hand weapons. In FoG, troops in contact are using hand-to-hand weapons.

[jlopez]

If you look at the definition of "open terrain" in Appendix 3 you will see that POAs and Cohesion Test modifiers for open terrain do not apply against fortifications and stakes count as fortifications against mounted. As a result the knights don't get a POA for fighting MF or for lance while the longbowmen get a net positive POA for defending fortifications in the impact phase:

Knights kill on 5 or 6, longbowmen on 4, 5 or 6.

In the melee phase, there are no POA as the knights' heavy amour cancels the fortification POA.

Regards,

Julian

[sagji]

3- Skirmishers can´t protect the flank of other troops as their restricted area is ignored by non-skirmishers. Even more, as LF can´t charge non-skirmishers, those enemy non-skirmishers can turn and offer their flank or rear to them without any concern. Shouldn´t LF be able to charge flank or rear of non-skirmishers, maybe after passing a CMT?

No. Foot skirmishers really weren't equipped to fight hand-to-hand with non-skirmishers. In DBM when skirmishers are in contact it represents them shooting at close range, not mixing it with hand-to-hand weapons. In FoG, troops in contact are using hand-to-hand weapons.

What I don't think is right is that the enemy can completely ignore the LF - I think the LF should be able to count as threatening the flank.

[rbodleyscott]

What I don't think is right is that the enemy can completely ignore the LF - I think the LF should be able to count as threatening the flank.

It is all a question of the degree of threat, which, in our view, is not enough to merit a modifier.

The actual threat to the victims is already quite significant as the LF are safe to pot away unmolested and will cause cohesion tests if they get the requisite number of hits. To be able to do this and get a modifier on the test would, in our opinion, be excessive and unbalancing.

[sagji]

What I don't think is right is that the enemy can completely ignore the LF - I think the LF should be able to count as threatening the flank.

It is all a question of the degree of threat, which, in our view, is not enough to merit a modifier.

The actual threat to the victims is already quite significant as the LF are safe to pot away unmolested and will cause cohesion tests if they get the requisite number of hits. To be able to do this and get a modifier on the test would, in our opinion, be excessive and unbalancing.

But what about the case when the LF can't shoot because the target is all in combat?
Why shouldn't LF behind a unit be more effective - while the nearest ranks will turn to face the fact that the whole BG doesn't implies the existence of an additional "threat". It would however be reasonable to limit the effect to melee only.

[dave_r]

But what about the case when the LF can't shoot because the target is all in combat?
Why shouldn't LF behind a unit be more effective - while the nearest ranks will turn to face the fact that the whole BG doesn't implies the existence of an additional "threat". It would however be reasonable to limit the effect to melee only.

It has been my experience that if you get skirmishers behind a unit that is fighting to it's front then the best course of action is too charge in the flank. This in theory should result in only one element turning to face.

You are at double plus in impact, which just about compensates for the extra dice your opponent gets.

The -ve POA for fighting in 2 directions should enable the unit in front to break through before the skirmishers die like dogs.

I have been both on the giving and receiving end of this and in both cases it resulted in the unit fighting in two directions breaking.

[rbodleyscott]

But what about the case when the LF can't shoot because the target is all in combat?
Why shouldn't LF behind a unit be more effective - while the nearest ranks will turn to face the fact that the whole BG doesn't implies the existence of an additional "threat". It would however be reasonable to limit the effect to melee only.

It has been my experience that if you get skirmishers behind a unit that is fighting to it's front then the best course of action is too charge in the flank. This in theory should result in only one element turning to face.

But, of course, LF can only do this in bad going.

[dave_r]

It has been my experience that if you get skirmishers behind a unit that is fighting to it's front then the best course of action is too charge in the flank. This in theory should result in only one element turning to face.

But, of course, LF can only do this in bad going.

Unless they are charging other skirmishers

Take the point though. Is it worth allowing LF to charge units who they can't fire at because they are engaged in hand to hand combat?

[rbodleyscott]

Is it worth allowing LF to charge units who they can't fire at because they are engaged in hand to hand combat?

We originally allowed LF to do this in early play-tests, but it gave them far too much effect.

I think people have still not got away from the DBM mindset - but the FoG paradigm is different: If troops are in contact in FoG they are fighting hand-to-hand.

If a few unarmoured skirmishers with fruit knives attacked a block of heavy infantry in the flank, who would care? It would be a trivial inconvenience. A few men would turn to face them and give them a slapping. It certainly would not not justify a round of combat at --, nor a -1 for fighting in two directions. There is nothing to stop LF joining a melee as an overlap however, which allows them a more realistic degree of effect.

We are extremely happy with the balance of this part of the rules.

[rogerg]

I like it too.
(Most of the time I post about a few things I think could be improved. I think it's time to add a bit of balance. I am happy very happy with the LF rules as they are.)

[moncholee]

Richard, Julián, thank you for your answers.