1HP3B

[nikgaukroger]

An idle thought that crossed my mind last night - how many close combats where you need to take a CT does this modifier not apply?

So far they have been very few and far between in games in my experience - and others at the club - to th extent that I have started to see 8 as the score required to pass such a CT.

[rbodleyscott]

An idle thought that crossed my mind last night - how many close combats where you need to take a CT does this modifier not apply?

Not too many, but they certainly do occur.

[nikgaukroger]

No big deal but I find it a bit unsatisfactory to have a modifier that happens in most cases - somehow a +1 for not suffering 1HP3B but needing 8 to pass would feel better psychologically as it would be unusual when it was applied. Same effect, of course

BTW got an enemy BG on -7 on its CT last night: 1HP3B, 25% losses, 2 hits more inflicted, threatened flank, MF losing to mounted and fragmented Oddly it failed and ran away

[hammy]

Normally when 1HP3B does not apply it is because only a small part of a BG is fighting, say someone has charged so that there is only a single base in contact at impact or when perhaps 4 dice a side are rolled in melee and one side is a 10 base BG etc.

Also you tend to get it when both sides are disrupted which is IMO a good thing, essentially both sides are a bit tired out and not fully commited to the fight.

Having a +1 if you don't suffer 1HP3B and needing 8 to pass would work but it moves the probability dynamic slightly.

Overall I quite like it but when I lose a melee 1 hit to 0 it is a nice bonus to not have a negative on the CT.

[rbodleyscott]

Having a +1 if you don't suffer 1HP3B and needing 8 to pass would work but it moves the probability dynamic slightly.

More than slightly. It would make a huge difference, for example, to the dynamic for impact foot/swordsmen vs steady pikes/spears when contact is only made on 1 base frontage. We would have the change the pass mark to compensate.

It is part of the design that you are more likely to drop cohesion from close combat than shooting.

I am sure, Nik, that you are not suggesting that it would be simpler to have different pass marks for combat and shooting.

[nikgaukroger]

In effect you already have that

As I said it was idle speculation about how common fights without 1HP3B being caused were.

[hammy]

In my experience I would say that at least 10% of close combats don't trigger the 1HP3B modifier.

[rbodleyscott]

In effect you already have that

Yes in effect we have it, but without actually having different pass marks. I submit that this is the better option. Your mileage may differ.

However, these factors have been very carefully balanced over 18 months of play-testing. They have the effect we intend and as the great Phil Barker once said "are more subtle than may be immediately apparent".

[shall]

BTW got an enemy BG on -7 on its CT last night: 1HP3B, 25% losses, 2 hits more inflicted, threatened flank, MF losing to mounted and fragmented Oddly it failed and ran away

Impressive and perhaps a record .... I think -6 is my best so far

Si

[sagji]

Perhaps it should be 1HP2B, the same as shooting.
Equal POA combat by 2 fully engaged units on average inflicts 1HP2B, so units would be taking it more than 50% of the time.
Possible issues: BGs of 9 (supported legionaries), and 12 (including pk 4 deep counting as 9), get a big boost. BGs of 4 get no boost. Knights, and similar troups that fight in 1 rank at 12 base per base, don't get as big a benefit (they average 1HP1B so are less likely to get into the non-penalised range.)