Cohesion test

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu May 15, 2008 5:52 pm

Does a BG have to take a cohesion test if it cannot see the cause of the test. For example it is in a wood.

flameberge · Post by **flameberge** » Fri May 16, 2008 4:57 am

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Fri May 16, 2008 5:10 am

Relying on the section heading on p112 which is "Seeing Friendly Battle Groups Break or Commanders Lost", those events would require sight of the event.

Montagu · Post by **Montagu** » Fri May 16, 2008 1:01 pm

IMO, the rules might be specific about there being no test but I think in real life 3 MUs is nothing. A unit in the woods that close to each other would hear and see individuals panicing near enough to know that their battlemates were fleeing.

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Fri May 16, 2008 9:41 pm

Montagu wrote:IMO, the rules might be specific about there being no test but I think in real life 3 MUs is nothing. A unit in the woods that close to each other would hear and see individuals panicing near enough to know that their battlemates were fleeing.

In a serious forest 3 MUs is enough to miss a trailhead, camp, house, or even road or simply lose direction, and sounds can be diffused and harder to pinpoint. An open woods won't be as bad, but the meanings of shouting and war cries at any particular time could be easily confused without clear visual cues. In any case it's only cutting it from 3 MU to 2 MU which to me is a reasonable concession to the terrain.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri May 16, 2008 9:55 pm

The rules are not specific. The title of the column says "SEEING FRIENDLY BATTLE GROUPS BREAK OR COMMANDERS LOST". It then says "Test a battle group if a friendly battle group within 3 MUs breaks:" and then some why, whens; then the same for generals. It says nothing, except in the title of the column, about being in sight. The player sees the BG break. As an aside command range is taken without having to be in sight.

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Sat May 17, 2008 1:38 am

It is simpler. Maybe deleting "Seeing" should be an erratum.

flameberge · Post by **flameberge** » Sat May 17, 2008 4:10 am

philqw78 wrote:The rules are not specific. The title of the column says "SEEING FRIENDLY BATTLE GROUPS BREAK OR COMMANDERS LOST". It then says "Test a battle group if a friendly battle group within 3 MUs breaks:" and then some why, whens; then the same for generals. It says nothing, except in the title of the column, about being in sight. The player sees the BG break. As an aside command range is taken without having to be in sight.

I think they mean there must be line of sight. I don't think the sentence "Test a battle group if a friendly battle group within 3 MUs breaks" needs to say friendly battle groups within 3 MUs and line of sight because they already said "seeing friendly battle groups break." I might be completely wrong. I guess we'll have to wait for the rules makers to clarify it for us.

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Sat May 17, 2008 4:16 am

I tend to agree with the above as if you only hear you don't know who, but if you can see you can get a good idea of what is happening!!
Plus I don't think they would have put SEEING if that was not their intent!!