Beta feedback - reading and some play.

[Empgamer]

For relevance of BOLD type, see post at 09:56 of 17/12/07

Played with a few friends last night. Thought I'd post some comments/queries. Apologies if this is irrelevant and has been covered but I don't have time now to trawl the forum to see if it's all covered and, with Xmas approaching, if I don't do this now, it won't get done. I don't expect lengthy replies to the comments at all and most of the queries will likely need only yes/no answers. I have marked those questions that we'd particularly appreciate comments on (others will doubtless be answered once we re-read and re-play, bearing mind this was our first game) with a *.

Comments

1. Liked the rules a lot. A couple had never been DBM fans and DBMM wasn't cutting it for them. These rules seem to have all the factors the players liked without the things that they disliked about DBM (or rather, what it has become). Players felt this could easily become a dominant rule set.

2. Layout - Some concern about how the rules are split up. For instance, shooting covered in the shooting section and combat resolution/POA section. This was felt to be cumbersome and we were constantly flicking back and forth to find what was needed. This may be due more to a lack of familiarity and the A4 copy paper print I have but, if this does not change, some X-referencing at least would help. In some cases, matters were confused when at the beginning of the Combat Resolution section the rules indicate that "we use the same as for shooting" implying, confusingly we thought, that this has already been covered, when in fact it is a few pages further on.

3. Layout - Major criticism was levelled at the combat example re Romans/Gauls. It is needed but we think it's in the wrong place. The section uses an example of combat which is fine but then goes into the cohesion tests which are not actually covered until 10 pages later? There was a sense of bewilderment about this and, with design values clearly being high, this might attract a lot of criticism. In our view, mechanisms should not be referenced until they have been explained, or at least not without a "(see post)" caveat. That the CTs in this example are gone into in such depth before that mechanism is even covered though was seen as bizarre.

4. (Added 17:35 as I forgot) Turn off - The only one really commented upon was the only part of FOG where some might view a calculator as beeing needed. Autobreak percentages. Given the relatively limited range of BG sizes people are likely to use we thought that the table for this could more usefully be replaced by a matrix showing the numbers of bases that a BG would need to lose to bring about an A/B. We have done our own (as others could of course) listing the troop quality across the top and BG size down the side. We could see no other reason to need a calculator in the game (for the more mathematically challenged for whom percentages are a no-go area) and didn't really see the need, given the limited table size, to make players bring one just for this. A potential turn off in our view that simply need not be there.

5. Assuming (hoping) the sections/paras etc will be numbered (e.g. 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 2.1.1, 2.1.2 etc) + a full index and contents.

Queries (we are planning to re-read and these may be self-evident in the rules)

1. Commander moves - It seems commanders MUST move at the end of move phase or JAP. We conlcuded that there is likely no objection to moving them before, provided such a move will not be 'contested', if they are placed in such a way that it will simply be easier to move them when the battle groups (they may be with) move (e.g. a commander in a cluster of 4 BGs whose base sits where one of the BGs needs to end up and that commander, when he should move, is going to be in the same relative position he started in with those BGs albeit further along the table).

2. Rear support - Is it right that in order to provide support to a BG of say, 8 bases, the supporting BG needs to be at least 4 bases strong? We did hit a bit of confusion about how triarii will work here as, proportion wise, they will never be 50% of a hast/princ BG. More reading to do here, we never got far enough to use them last night, albeit I started to move them off to protect a flank from a rapidly approaching Carthaginian cavalry wing trying to position for a flank attack. I had planned to use both pairs of triarii in a line to fend this off, not sure if I can (see 15).

3. Double moves - must a commader be actually WITH (e.g. attached to/touching) one of the bases of a BG or BL for them to get the double move? We read yes. The rules stress 'in line command' which is clear enough but we read 'with' as attached to, not near (Glossary entry?). *

4. Example lists - despite numerous recounts, we only get the Carthage list to 630, not 634?? If I get time, I'll post our points.

5. Sideways moves - we read that this can ONLY be done as part of a free move at the end/beginning (1/2 base width etc) and as part of aligning for combat and that BGs can never do whole scale side stepping.

6. Double wheels - when cavalry are moving can they 'wheel, move, wheel, move'? We see that they can double wheel but not sure if there is a restriction on whether their move must be in one chunk with a wheel at start or whether the move can be broken into two parts. *

7. Leaving Battle Line - For a BG to leave a BL we read that it can just move away?

8. Charges - Just to confirm, there is no charge move bonus (e.g. cavalry do not get a double move etc). I am certain (and glad) this is NO!!

9. Split fire - Not sure but we think that a BG of 8 slingers cannot split their fire between two units in equal range. Either target priority applies or player decides (if both equal)?

10. Rounding -

a) with 1 dice per 2 bases (shooting with slings), a BG with 3 base in range of target we rounded down to 1 dice?
b) 1HP3B requires 2 hits for a BG of either 4, 5 or 6? Therefore, the slingers at a) do not shoot at cavalry here as they cannot force a CT?

11. Second rank shooters - where it says that where second rank shooters shoot as if in first rank (e.g. 1 dice per base), where there is a third row of shooters do they shoot as if second row or is the third row out for shooting except in impact etc?

12. Impact/BG connection - It seems that a BG in the impact phase can at times connect with more that one BG?

13. Pike v Impact Foot - We read that in this case, IF will always (at least) be on a +POA v Pike, even if Pike are charging and IF receive?

14. Longbows - no range advantage it seems. Only (in my view this is in fairness a very good only) advantage for LB is v heavily armoured.

15. Combat (More than one BG) - we couldn't agree on this. 2 x BG (each of 4) of cav (Spanish and Gallic). Player joins both (effectively in a BL with a commander attached). The BL is 2 wide by 4 deep. Approaching combat the BGs (and we may have been playing this totally wrong, it was a rushed night ) open out so they are now 4 wide/2 deep (Spanish first rank then Gallic). Impact phase is fought by Spanish only. In the melee phase can the Gallic fight? One POV was that because they are not part of same BG, no (that melee is fought by BGs and not BLs makes the attached commander/BL irrelevant). Conclusion was that they can only fight by joining the combat in overlap and that 2 lines of 4 cav is an ineffective use. We didn't get time to read and re-read this but plan to today (for instance, are we right, does this apply even to troops of EXACT same type/quality - e.g. can two ranks fight where first is a BG of 4 hastati in line and second is also hastati in line). Doubtless easy to explain but we were rushed last night. The other POV was that if the remained in the second rank, and the first rank lost a base, the 2nd rank could feed in (this was without looking up whether it would ever be feasible re CTs etc). Bit confused on this. ***

Anyway, enough ramblings. Excellent set of rules, thorougly enjoyed them. It will be nice to get my 15s back out and use them again with a game that is likely to have wide appeal IMHO. Some good rule sets out there (Shattered Lances, Might of Arms etc), finding anyone that plays them is a challenge. This I think will change that and it's nice to see that quite a lot of enjoyment and drama has been introduced to the rules. And that 'diers' die and shooters SHOOT!! [/b]

[hammy]

1. Commander moves - It seems commanders MUST move at the end of move phase or JAP. We conlcuded that there is likely no objection to moving them before, provided such a move will not be 'contested', if they are placed in such a way that it will simply be easier to move them when the battle groups (they may be with) move (e.g. a commander in a cluster of 4 BGs whose base sits where one of the BGs needs to end up and that commander, when he should move, is going to be in the same relative position he started in with those BGs albeit further along the table).

It is not compulsary to move commanders in the JAP. Commanders may move in normal movement and the JAP at the end of each players turn.

2. Rear support - Is it right that in order to provide support to a BG of say, 8 bases, the supporting BG needs to be at least 4 bases strong? We did hit a bit of confusion about how triarii will work here as, proportion wise, they will never be 50% of a hast/princ BG. More reading to do here, we never got far enough to use them last night, albeit I started to move them off to protect a flank from a rapidly approaching Carthaginian cavalry wing trying to position for a flank attack. I had planned to use both pairs of triarii in a line to fend this off, not sure if I can (see 15).

In the Republican Roman lists Hastai and Principes are normally in BG's of 4 and Triarii are in BG's of 2. Each legion is made up of two BG's of Hastai&Principes combined to make a 4 base BG and one of 2 bases of Triarii that can be placed behind the junction of the two fron't BG's and provice rear support to both like this:

Code: Select all

11112222
11112222
   TT
   TT

3. Double moves - must a commader be actually WITH (e.g. attached to/touching) one of the bases of a BG or BL for them to get the double move? We read yes. The rules stress 'in line command' which is clear enough but we read 'with' as attached to, not near (Glossary entry?). *

Yes you were right. The in line of command refers to allied generals who cannot command troops not of thier nation. So an Ostrogoth general in a Roman army can only command Ostrogoths.

5. Sideways moves - we read that this can ONLY be done as part of a free move at the end/beginning (1/2 base width etc) and as part of aligning for combat and that BGs can never do whole scale side stepping.

Slides can be made as part of your first move each turn as long as you don't move within 6MU of the enemy. This slide is a full base slide and allows limited redeployment. The other 1/2 base slides are only allowed when required and can be done nearer the enemy.

6. Double wheels - when cavalry are moving can they 'wheel, move, wheel, move'? We see that they can double wheel but not sure if there is a restriction on whether their move must be in one chunk with a wheel at start or whether the move can be broken into two parts. *

IMO yes, you can wheel, move, wheel, move but it is a double wheel

7. Leaving Battle Line - For a BG to leave a BL we read that it can just move away?

Yup

8. Charges - Just to confirm, there is no charge move bonus (e.g. cavalry do not get a double move etc). I am certain (and glad) this is NO!!

Correct

9. Split fire - Not sure but we think that a BG of 8 slingers cannot split their fire between two units in equal range. Either target priority applies or player decides (if both equal)?

Target priorities are evaluated base by base not BG by BG so it is quite common for a BG to split it's fire.

10. Rounding -

a) with 1 dice per 2 bases (shooting with slings), a BG with 3 base in range of target we rounded down to 1 dice?
b) 1HP3B requires 2 hits for a BG of either 4, 5 or 6? Therefore, the slingers at a) do not shoot at cavalry here as they cannot force a CT?

There is no rounding, just different ways of calculating.
1 dice per 2 bases means that for every 2 bases you get a dice. In places you lose 1 dice per 2 bases (if you are fragged etc.)
1HP3B needs 1 hit for every full or part 3 bases so in this case the slingers cannot affect the cavalry enough to make them test.

You will find that it is not that unusual for there to be situations where shooting happens but can't actually do anything.

11. Second rank shooters - where it says that where second rank shooters shoot as if in first rank (e.g. 1 dice per base), where there is a third row of shooters do they shoot as if second row or is the third row out for shooting except in impact etc?

Third rank shooting is only considered during the impact phase.

12. Impact/BG connection - It seems that a BG in the impact phase can at times connect with more that one BG?

It certainly can

13. Pike v Impact Foot - We read that in this case, IF will always (at least) be on a +POA v Pike, even if Pike are charging and IF receive?

Troops are considered to make an appropriate response. There is none of the DBMM if I move into charge range of the enemy cavalry with my knights then the cavalry will charge me and I will be at a dissadvantage rubbish. If pike charge IF the IF will be considered to countercharge as appropriate. If lancers charge IF they will be considered to receive stationary which is again the appropriate response.

14. Longbows - no range advantage it seems. Only (in my view this is in fairness a very good only) advantage for LB is v heavily armoured.

Longbows are good in FoG but not the super weapon some wanted them to be. I think that they are about right and would not like to argue with them if I was using knights.

15. Combat (More than one BG) - we couldn't agree on this. 2 x BG (each of 4) of cav (Spanish and Gallic). Player joins both (effectively in a BL with a commander attached). The BL is 2 wide by 4 deep. Approaching combat the BGs (and we may have been playing this totally wrong, it was a rushed night ) open out so they are now 4 wide/2 deep (Spanish first rank then Gallic). Impact phase is fought by Spanish only. In the melee phase can the Gallic fight? One POV was that because they are not part of same BG, no (that melee is fought by BGs and not BLs makes the attached commander/BL irrelevant). Conclusion was that they can only fight by joining the combat in overlap and that 2 lines of 4 cav is an ineffective use. We didn't get time to read and re-read this but plan to today (for instance, are we right, does this apply even to troops of EXACT same type/quality - e.g. can two ranks fight where first is a BG of 4 hastati in line and second is also hastati in line). Doubtless easy to explain but we were rushed last night. The other POV was that if the remained in the second rank, and the first rank lost a base, the 2nd rank could feed in (this was without looking up whether it would ever be feasible re CTs etc). Bit confused on this. ***

You played this wrong. Each BG is independent. A commander can be with a BL for movement but will still be actually with one BG. What should have happened was for the Gauls and Spanish to be deploued side by side and the commander could join one BG for the combat.

Anyway, enough ramblings. Excellent set of rules, thorougly enjoyed them. It will be nice to get my 15s back out and use them again with a game that is likely to have wide appeal IMHO. Some good rule sets out there (Shattered Lances, Might of Arms etc), finding anyone that plays them is a challenge. This I think will change that and it's nice to see that quite a lot of enjoyment and drama has been introduced to the rules. And that 'diers' die and shooters SHOOT!!

Glad you enjoyed yourself.

[Empgamer]

Just to avoid mega-length post I won't do a full quote. Few clarifications:

1. When I say MUST move I mean that if they are going to move at all it should/must be at the end of the movement phase or in the JAP. We just found it inconvenient at times to adhere rigidly to that, esp where the move would not actually be in contention by the other player (e.g. a complex arrangement of BGs with a cdr somewhere in the muddle).

2. That's where we got confused I think. Wrongly viewing the Hastati/Triarii LEGION proportions as BGs when in fact, as you say, the H/P are actually in BGs of 4 (in our case) and thus at 2 triarii per BG, the latter can support any groups of 4 H/P they are in range of (assuming they can support more than one BG). Like I say, another read planned today, or two.

3. Aware of what 'line of command' means. It was just the interpretation of 'with'. I have to say I found 'with' quite easy to comprehend. Two of them felt that 'near' was enough (impossible IMHO as near is not defined).

5. Doubtless we mis-read this.

6. My reading too. We need to clarify. FAQ?

9. Need a re-read of this.

10. I have seen several references to rounding up/down so think there must be???? Again, re-read in order.

11. Accept that. The query though relates to shooting phase. Rules say (IIRC) that in some cases, 2nd rank (where 1st is not missile armed - I wasn't clear on that) shoot as if 1st rank (e.g. 1 dice per base etc?). Now, where a 3rd rank is also missile, in the shooting phase, because the 2nd rank shoot as 1st rank, does this carry over to the 3rd rank which then shoot as 2nd rank (e.g. 1 dice per 2 bases). We think not but can see how some may interpret it as such.

13. Accept that. We just wanted to ensure we had it right. If Impact Foot charge Pike they are on +POA. If Pike charge Impact Foot the latter are on +POA again. Just seemed odd. We weren't comparing mechanisms in DBMM etc. Pike thus seem to get no benefit v impact foot whether or not they receive a charge or make one?

15. I'm not sure playing it wrong comes into it. The query was not really about had it been the best tactical move rules-wise, rather, as a purely objective question, if two BGs of 4 cavalry are deployed so that each BG is 4 in line across, with one BG directly behind the other, is there any way at all that the 2nd BG can fight in melee? My view is no and, as such, can't see a reason to deploy thus unless (again, a re-read needed) there is a bonus by way of them providing support which in some situations a player could decide was preferable (not sure when/how at all).

[hammy]

1:Generals can move in the movement phase AND in the JAP. They can also be moved if they get in the way of other troops as they aren't really there, just a marker. Is it moving them because they are in the way that is the problem?

3:Perhaps a FAQ point to define with is in order. For me if a commander is with a BG he is touching that BG, otherwise hs is merely within command radius at best.

10:I have just checked the rules and there are points where rounding is mentioned but all the ones I can find (except the Orb rule) are in the form of lose 1 dice per 2 i.e. half and round up or such like. The reference to rounding is always following an i.e. Sorry for any confusion my there is no rounding caused, it is simpler though to work that there isn't rounding just one for every two ro three etc.

11:Shooting allows a BG to be formed with a front rank of non shooting troops such as Byzantine cavalry lancers with a second rank of archers but the second rank of archers shoot at full effect from the same position as the first rank. It is a relatively unusual idea but allows mixed formations to work very well.

15:There is no direct way that a BG in single rank can be helped by a different BG in single rank behind it. The second BG may provide rear support to a failed CT but in general a BG in one rank will be quickly broken and the one behind will do well not to be burst through by the routers. Try playing a few more games and see where rear support helps and where it is a luxury.

[Empgamer]

1. Yes, just their being in the way. Only because rules mention they should be moved at end of move phase. I can't see people crying foul if a 'non-conetntious' move.

3. I'd agree. And re 6 above.

11. May be getting myself into a theoretical muddle here. Presumably if those Byzantine cav shoot, it's one dice per base (shoot as if FIRST rank)? Now, (if the lists even allow or anyone would want to do this), does a THIRD rank of shooters behind them then count as SECOND rank (and thus shoot 1 dice per 2 bases) OR does the rule not read across to the third rank (e.g. they do not shoot as if SECOND rank), and, because they are THIRD rank, do not shoot at all. Sorry if this sounds confusing, I know what I'm trying to say, not clear if it's coming over well.

15. That's the way I'd read it too. I'll probably try a few dozen combat match ups to see what results are. Personally I can see cavalry being able to fight on impact and in melee (e.g. 2 BGs of 4 side by side in 2x2 formation) as generally MUCH more use (and more robust) that two BGs of 4x1, one behind the other.

Thanks for comments.

[Empgamer]

Added further points 5 and 6 under general comments so as not to break flow. Some further points re rules (numbering following on from above):

16. Cavalry v Steady Inf - Seems a little odd that cav attacking steady infantry MUST break off to within 1 MU of another enemy, putting themselves at risk, if there is somewhere else for them to break off too. May be a mis read but it does seem a little like enforced cavalry stupidity.

17. Evades - We read that evading skirmishers, due to VMDs, can, at times, be caught by non skirmishers.

18. CTs - the section 'Seeing friendly BGs break' (P63) took several reads to get clear. Not sure if re-wording might make this clearer?

19. CTs (Non skirmisher - threatened flank) - Assume 'threatened flank' means flank within shooting range of enemy missile and/or charge range of enemy missile/non-missile?

20 Death roll - Might be better if the example is split up into
a) the initial stand removal due to a winning roll not being possible and
b) the subsequent -6 roll - to make clearer.

[stevoid]

Added further points 5 and 6 under general comments so as not to break flow. Some further points re rules (numbering following on from above):

16. Cavalry v Steady Inf - Seems a little odd that cav attacking steady infantry MUST break off to within 1 MU of another enemy, putting themselves at risk, if there is somewhere else for them to break off too. May be a mis read but it does seem a little like enforced cavalry stupidity.

17. Evades - We read that evading skirmishers, due to VMDs, can, at times, be caught by non skirmishers.

18. CTs - the section 'Seeing friendly BGs break' (P63) took several reads to get clear. Not sure if re-wording might make this clearer?

19. CTs (Non skirmisher - threatened flank) - Assume 'threatened flank' means flank within shooting range of enemy missile and/or charge range of enemy missile/non-missile?

20 Death roll - Might be better if the example is split up into
a) the initial stand removal due to a winning roll not being possible and
b) the subsequent -6 roll - to make clearer.

16. My take is that the cavalry are breaking off because the melee is not going their way, i.e. the foot are remaining steady, therefore the urgency is to get out, if enemy have snuck in behind then I think it is expecting a bit much that the cav's hasty retreat from combat should be able to factor in all threats to their advantage.

edit 17. Yes.

19. This is defined in the glossary. Essentially non-skirmishers capable of charging the threatened flank.

[hazelbark]

16. Cavalry v Steady Inf - Seems a little odd that cav attacking steady infantry MUST break off to within 1 MU of another enemy, putting themselves at risk, if there is somewhere else for them to break off too. May be a mis read but it does seem a little like enforced cavalry stupidity.

The idea isn't that they are evading away but falling back to charge again and then discover the foe has snuck in. We had one where KN charged in and the conformed and when they were about to break off discovered their own handgunners were now behind them and KN don't interpentrate the handgunners! opps. Lots of fun here that does not always help the mounted. I like it.

17. Evades - We read that evading skirmishers, due to VMDs, can, at times, be caught by non skirmishers.

Exactly and the skirmishers get creamed getting caught in the rear with POA ++. If that doesn't do the trick the melee dice are usually equally bad.

19. CTs (Non skirmisher - threatened flank) - Assume 'threatened flank' means flank within shooting range of enemy missile and/or charge range of enemy missile/non-missile?

It has a better specific definiation in the glossary. Essentially the situation has to be one where it can get hit and suffer the flank POA ++

[hammy]

16: mounted that are fighting steady foot (i.e. have failed to break into the formation of the foot) must break off a full move away from those foot. The 1MU only applies if there are enemy troops preventing the break off. The mounted foot interraction works nicely combining repeated charges and gradual wearing down of either side.

18: Interesting, I just reread that section and dodn't really have a problem. Perhaps it is because I am used to reading DBM and while a relatively complex list of bullets it is far simpler than a lot of rules I have read elsewhere. What exact issues did you have?

19: Threatened flank means can be charged by non skirmishers OR and this is far more likely IMO within 6MU of the edge of the table.

20: The death roll one is a bit odd but it is more complex when you factor in the modifiers to the roll. If you do 7 hits to a BG of normal troops and beat them then they will lose a base and may lose an extra base but if you somehow manage to inflict 7 hits on a BG of elephants that beat you then there is a fair chance that they will not lose a base. There was a lot of discussion some time ago on the best way to word this and I think the current wording is a least bad solution.

[Empgamer]

Thanks for replies.

16. More than happy with the rule and the explanations.

18. OK:

a) First bullet is OK
b) Bullet two might be better explained. "Measure the 3MU distance between breaking battle group before any of its bases are removed and test before broken troops make their rout move"
c) 3rd, 4th and 5th bullets OK
d) 6th bullet perhaps a little confusingly throws in a commander being 'with' as well as in 'line of command'. May be better if this bullet started "In cases where a commander is also 'WITH" (see Glossary - if that is felt to be needed) a BG, measure from............

19. Missed this in the Glossary. Teach me to skim read it and think "yeah, fine, got that"

20. Death roll and description is ultimately fine. I just think that it would be easier to comprehened that the two distinct 'methods' (for want of a better word) are being used in the example by having point a) reading up to the end of "so it loses one base", and then a point b) starting with "It must (then) deduct 6....."

Showed the table regarding percentages and quality re auto-breaks to a few lads in their teens who were happily hammering away at WAB, WFB and 40K last night. Gave them a range of BG sizes and troop types and asked how many each would need to lose to break. Basic response was "no way, wouldn't play if that was needed". Now, some might say "Their problem", but, wargaming arguably needs new blood and the youngsters are the source. I'm not for dumbing down at all but where this table is the ONLY aspect (that I can see) that would require a mathematically challenged individual to bring a calculator to a game and, given the limited numbers of troop quality types (4), and likely BG sizes (2,4,6,8,10,12?), I would think that pretty much the same space on a QRS could be taken up with a table giving "Auto-break on the loss of" bases per troop type/BG size, rather than with what some would see as a user-unfriendly percentage table. Again, just a thought. On a selfish note I'm more than happy about percentage tables, BUT..................

[rbodleyscott]

Showed the table regarding percentages and quality re auto-breaks to a few lads in their teens who were happily hammering away at WAB, WFB and 40K last night. Gave them a range of BG sizes and troop types and asked how many each would need to lose to break. Basic response was "no way, wouldn't play if that was needed". Now, some might say "Their problem", but, wargaming arguably needs new blood and the youngsters are the source. I'm not for dumbing down at all but where this table is the ONLY aspect (that I can see) that would require a mathematically challenged individual to bring a calculator to a game and, given the limited numbers of troop quality types (4), and likely BG sizes (2,4,6,8,10,12?), I would think that pretty much the same space on a QRS could be taken up with a table giving "Auto-break on the loss of" bases per troop type/BG size, rather than with what some would see as a user-unfriendly percentage table. Again, just a thought. On a selfish note I'm more than happy about percentage tables, BUT..................

Yes, it seems we have missed a trick there. In fact the table would need cover 2,4,6,8,9,10,12.

I suspect we may put a souped up version of the QRS on the web page, but whether that will help with these lads, I don't know.

[Empgamer]

Presumably at the printers and too late to intercept?

I don't think it's that big a deal, almost any game now (any worth its salt) will have a support web-site and an auto-break QRS offered as an extra, or included as an update to an existing one will, I suspect, be just as welcomed as if it were in the rules from day one. In fact, to show the mechanics, I suspect quality rules will show the mechanism in the rules (percentages) and have the numbers in a QRS

To be fair I didn't let on what the rules were for or about as I don't like to create half-baked impressions of a game and have people dismiss it for the wrong reasons, in this case, purely for the sake of showing them a table they didn't take to. In addition to those who will just buy it I think a good showcasing of a game by a few committed (crusading) individuals at clubs (those like me with a vested interest, so I can get more opponents) who have learned the game to at least a reasonable standard is the best way to give a game a fair crack. As an aside, after the "No way" response, I showed them a QRS I'd knocked up and asked what they thought. Preferred option every time.

[carlos]

Because of the autobreak situation, I actually made my own chart to keep as a refsheet. It reads like this:

BG Size/Elite/Superior/Average/Poor
2/2/2/1/1
4/3/3/2/2
6/4/4/3/2
8/5/5/4/3
9/6/5/4/3
10/7/6/5/4
12/8/7/5/4

[Empgamer]

Yep ours is much the same accept that for a BG of 2 we have them all autobreak on a loss of one. We may have misread this but thought that any BG reduced to one base was broken?

[carlos]

I agree with you on a), but what do you mean by b)? I have my elites in a BG of 12 (are there any?) autobreaking when they lose 8. 60% of 12 is 7.2, so they autobreak on 8.

[Empgamer]

Hi Carlos

Just edited that point out as you were posting. Our table is the other way round Poor > Elite and goes up to a BG of 14 (I only did it quickly and wasn't even sure if 14 was a permissible BG size). I also missed out 9. Glancing down at it I got the figures confused and was reading the wrong row and had them A/B on 6

[rbodleyscott]

Yep ours is much the same accept that for a BG of 2 we have them all autobreak on a loss of one. We may have misread this but thought that any BG reduced to one base was broken?

Not quite. They are destroyed at the end of the JAP, but are not broken until then if they were a BG of 2 Superior or Elite. (In effect, they are assumed to have fought "to the last man").

[Empgamer]

That's a point. Off to ponder where leaving them on until the JAP will be of benefit (accept of course that you must), haven't come across the situation yet and just trying to get my head round where the benefit will lie (doubtless something to do with combats and/or CTs by friendlies etc etc).

[rbodleyscott]

That's a point. Off to ponder where leaving them on until the JAP will be of benefit (accept of course that you must), haven't come across the situation yet and just trying to get my head round where the benefit will lie (doubtless something to do with combats and/or CTs by friendlies etc etc).

Well, for one thing, if they lose a base in the impact phase, they will still get to fight in the melee phase.

[Empgamer]

That's what was going through my head but wanted to confirm I had the sequence of events right and confirm that one base can fight. Being elite triarii (in my case) they can still do some damage

As the thread has some long posts, and quite a lot of bullets, some answered, I'm going through today and marking in bold some which it would be nice to clarify. I also highlighted the general comment regarding giving the example of CTs in some depth, before the mechanism has been explained. Along with % table, this was the only other element (no pun intended) that came in for some fairly harsh criticism.