Some quick questions please

[stenic]

Another fun game last night. Classical Indian vs Parthian on very open steppes.

In brief for those that like to know...otherwise skip to below for the questions....

The Parthians split their forces to each flank leaving a surprised Indian army facing a relatively empty space. Unsurprisingly the Indians used the Elephants to screen the MF Bow. The Parthians used the LH to pester the Elephants but were not able to avoid elephant vs cataphract match ups eventually. The Parthians did however manage to force the LCh to scuttle away on one wing with a mixture of LF bowfire and a charge by Cats. This left a flank open against an elephan BG that was exploited, the nellies broke and the cats pursued into the MF bow who also broke.... who routed through another MF bow BG ... who were also hit by the pursuers... it got messy

In the centre 3 Parthian BGs of LH managed to eventually force enough CTs on an elephant BG to break it. On the right the Indians faired better and were knocking bases and cohesion levels off 2 Cataphract BGs but were still in danger of being mobbed by LH who were able to dance around the field. As time was called the Indians were down by 4 or 5 APs to 1 and likely to lose more BGs in quick succession, their left flank was solid but their right was failing and centre looked dodgy, so the Indian graciously accepted defeat and went home.


To the questions:

1) Can a general, who was in the front rank fighting, move away from a BG in the JAP that pursued into contact and will fight in impact next turn ? In effect, does the pursuit into contact indicate that they are in a state of combat and the general is still stuck in the front rank because he was there during the previous fight or as there is now a new combat is he effectively 'reset' and no longer in the front rank?

2) Dice per X bases again I'm afraid. In impact a BG of Cats hits a disrupted BG of MF Bow in 2 ranks. Only one base in each BG makes contact so each base has 2 dice. The MF bow would get a 3rd dice on shooting POAs for the support shooting in impact. But, as the Bow are disrupted, do they first count all the dice (ie 3) and then apply the lose 1 per 3 rule to end up on 2 dice? Or do they apply the rule to 2 different sets of POA dice, ie 1 for support, lose 1per 3 so lose nothing, 2 for impact, lose 1per3 so lose nothing, leaving 3 dice total on different POAs?

3) This is related to 2. If a disrupted 2 base elephant BG is fighting enemy to front and back, having turned to face both opponents does it apply the lose 1 per x bases to all its dice or does it apply it seperately to each set of dice it has allocated to fight each opposing BG? In effect meaning there would be no dice loss as it would be using 2 dice vd each BG.

4) Expanding. The wording in the rules states that expansion can be by 1 or 2 'bases' to the same or either side. By base do they mean a base width worth, ie an entire file, or is it literally 1 or 2 bases? So for example a 12 base BG of pikes in column could expand a base width to each side and take with it 4 bases to give a 3 wide 4 deep formation in 1 go? Or would it have to spend 4 turns doing the same by only moving 2 bases a turn?

In this one one of us read the text and took 'bases' as literal and the other looked at the diagrams and assumed bases meant base width's worth.

Thanks,

Steve P

[dave_r]

1) Can a general, who was in the front rank fighting, move away from a BG in the JAP that pursued into contact and will fight in impact next turn ? In effect, does the pursuit into contact indicate that they are in a state of combat and the general is still stuck in the front rank because he was there during the previous fight or as there is now a new combat is he effectively 'reset' and no longer in the front rank?

As soon as the general leaves a combat he is "freed". He can join the impact phase if he wishes, but is not compelled to do so. Since there will be a JAP where theoretically he is not in combat he can move away from the BG if he wants.

2) Dice per X bases again I'm afraid. In impact a BG of Cats hits a disrupted BG of MF Bow in 2 ranks. Only one base in each BG makes contact so each base has 2 dice. The MF bow would get a 3rd dice on shooting POAs for the support shooting in impact. But, as the Bow are disrupted, do they first count all the dice (ie 3) and then apply the lose 1 per 3 rule to end up on 2 dice? Or do they apply the rule to 2 different sets of POA dice, ie 1 for support, lose 1per 3 so lose nothing, 2 for impact, lose 1per3 so lose nothing, leaving 3 dice total on different POAs?

They add up all their dice (i.e. in this case six) and then take away 1 per 3. So if two bases were fighting (I presume in this case) then they would end up with four dice.

3) This is related to 2. If a disrupted 2 base elephant BG is fighting enemy to front and back, having turned to face both opponents does it apply the lose 1 per x bases to all its dice or does it apply it seperately to each set of dice it has allocated to fight each opposing BG? In effect meaning there would be no dice loss as it would be using 2 dice vd each BG.

Losing dice is per BG, NOT per opponent. I think you are possibly confusing shooting dice where you add up bases that shoot at a target BG? So in this case the elephants would get a total of three dice - it would be your choice as to where that dice is lost (as the elephants would normally have two dice each so you have to lose one. The numbers are equal so you get to choose)

4) Expanding. The wording in the rules states that expansion can be by 1 or 2 'bases' to the same or either side. By base do they mean a base width worth, ie an entire file, or is it literally 1 or 2 bases? So for example a 12 base BG of pikes in column could expand a base width to each side and take with it 4 bases to give a 3 wide 4 deep formation in 1 go? Or would it have to spend 4 turns doing the same by only moving 2 bases a turn?

This confuses me as well. It is per file. Poorly worded IMO.

[lawrenceg]

4) Expanding. The wording in the rules states that expansion can be by 1 or 2 'bases' to the same or either side. By base do they mean a base width worth, ie an entire file, or is it literally 1 or 2 bases? So for example a 12 base BG of pikes in column could expand a base width to each side and take with it 4 bases to give a 3 wide 4 deep formation in 1 go? Or would it have to spend 4 turns doing the same by only moving 2 bases a turn?



This confuses me as well. It is per file. Poorly worded IMO.

If you read the paragraph on expansions on page 46 you should find it clear enough.

[SirGarnet]

2) Dice per X bases again I'm afraid. In impact a BG of Cats hits a disrupted BG of MF Bow in 2 ranks. Only one base in each BG makes contact so each base has 2 dice. The MF bow would get a 3rd dice on shooting POAs for the support shooting in impact. But, as the Bow are disrupted, do they first count all the dice (ie 3) and then apply the lose 1 per 3 rule to end up on 2 dice? Or do they apply the rule to 2 different sets of POA dice, ie 1 for support, lose 1per 3 so lose nothing, 2 for impact, lose 1per3 so lose nothing, leaving 3 dice total on different POAs?

Since you get two impact dice for the front rank and one support shooting dice, the table on page 92 makes clear they are consolidated so you remove one die. On the top of p94 it says dice at different enemy BGs or different POAs against different parts of the same BG should be reduced proportionately and should leave at least one die at each class of opponent if possible. This doesn't address our issue specifically but I think the same logic would apply, probably meaning you reduce one front-rank die as it is more proportional and leaves one support and one normal impact die each.

However, it would be reasonable (but I don't see a rule) allowing the BG to decline to support shoot in an Impact if the shooting die you add is at a worse odds than the front-rank die it would displace.

Mike

[stenic]

However, it would be reasonable (but I don't see a rule) allowing the BG to decline to support shoot in an Impact if the shooting die you add is at a worse odds than the front-rank die it would displace.

Mike

That's what we settled on although it was relatively academic as to which dice was dropped as my cats were ++ up, superior and general to front

Thanks all for the replies, makes it all a bit clearer.

Steve P

[philqw78]

However, it would be reasonable (but I don't see a rule) allowing the BG to decline to support shoot in an Impact if the shooting die you add is at a worse odds than the front-rank die it would displace.

Mike

However a lot of people are not that reasonable and, though I agree, if I was on the receiving end I wouldn't be happy. So something needs to go in the FAQ or something about this because you just can't decide not to roll dice and by the letter of the law it would make you worse off.

[SirGarnet]

However a lot of people are not that reasonable and, though I agree, if I was on the receiving end I wouldn't be happy. So something needs to go in the FAQ or something about this because you just can't decide not to roll dice and by the letter of the law it would make you worse off.

It could be rationalized as disorder or disruption causing the support shooting to injure or alarm some of the front rankers, thereby reducing the overall resisting power of the BG below what it would have been had they not shot at all.

Rather like the machine gunning of one's own troops in the Great War - support one can do without.

[grahambriggs]

2) Dice per X bases again I'm afraid. In impact a BG of Cats hits a disrupted BG of MF Bow in 2 ranks. Only one base in each BG makes contact so each base has 2 dice. The MF bow would get a 3rd dice on shooting POAs for the support shooting in impact. But, as the Bow are disrupted, do they first count all the dice (ie 3) and then apply the lose 1 per 3 rule to end up on 2 dice? Or do they apply the rule to 2 different sets of POA dice, ie 1 for support, lose 1per 3 so lose nothing, 2 for impact, lose 1per3 so lose nothing, leaving 3 dice total on different POAs?

Since you get two impact dice for the front rank and one support shooting dice, the table on page 92 makes clear they are consolidated so you remove one die. On the top of p94 it says dice at different enemy BGs or different POAs against different parts of the same BG should be reduced proportionately and should leave at least one die at each class of opponent if possible. This doesn't address our issue specifically but I think the same logic would apply, probably meaning you reduce one front-rank die as it is more proportional and leaves one support and one normal impact die each.

However, it would be reasonable (but I don't see a rule) allowing the BG to decline to support shoot in an Impact if the shooting die you add is at a worse odds than the front-rank die it would displace.

Mike

I don't have the rules with me Mike but if they are as you say I don't see then why you could not drop the shooting die. It's not fighting a different BG. Also, it's not fighting at different POAs against different parts of the same BG. It's fighting at different POAs against the same part of the same BG.

[SirGarnet]

I don't have the rules with me Mike but if they are as you say I don't see then why you could not drop the shooting die. It's not fighting a different BG. Also, it's not fighting at different POAs against different parts of the same BG. It's fighting at different POAs against the same part of the same BG.

Because, say, you were charging a fragmented 4 Spear/4 Bow Crusader BG and the commander decided the 4 dice to reduce were just the shooting ones on 6s rather than the front rank ones on 4s? I don't think support shooting should make you worse off than without it, but dice opportunism seems out as well - the system is built on allocating reductions and maybe I was just too tired and missing a rule somewhere but if not it should be there.

Cheers,

Mike

[grahambriggs]

I don't have the rules with me Mike but if they are as you say I don't see then why you could not drop the shooting die. It's not fighting a different BG. Also, it's not fighting at different POAs against different parts of the same BG. It's fighting at different POAs against the same part of the same BG.

Because, say, you were charging a fragmented 4 Spear/4 Bow Crusader BG and the commander decided the 4 dice to reduce were just the shooting ones on 6s rather than the front rank ones on 4s? I don't think support shooting should make you worse off than without it, but dice opportunism seems out as well - the system is built on allocating reductions and maybe I was just too tired and missing a rule somewhere but if not it should be there.

Cheers,

Mike

Maybe you're right Mike. I had thought that if you have to reduce numbers of dice yoiu do it as evenly as possible but if that won't work you get a choice what to drop. So the crusaders would not have this problem (8 dice for the spear plus 4 for the bow all halved - so 4 sp and 2 Bw)

[hammy]

I don't have the rules with me Mike but if they are as you say I don't see then why you could not drop the shooting die. It's not fighting a different BG. Also, it's not fighting at different POAs against different parts of the same BG. It's fighting at different POAs against the same part of the same BG.

Because, say, you were charging a fragmented 4 Spear/4 Bow Crusader BG and the commander decided the 4 dice to reduce were just the shooting ones on 6s rather than the front rank ones on 4s? I don't think support shooting should make you worse off than without it, but dice opportunism seems out as well - the system is built on allocating reductions and maybe I was just too tired and missing a rule somewhere but if not it should be there.

Cheers,

Mike

Maybe you're right Mike. I had thought that if you have to reduce numbers of dice yoiu do it as evenly as possible but if that won't work you get a choice what to drop. So the crusaders would not have this problem (8 dice for the spear plus 4 for the bow all halved - so 4 sp and 2 Bw)

Mike is right, in the example of 8 spear and 4 bow you have to lose 3 spear dice and 1 bow dice (2 out of 6 spear and 1 out of 3 bow leaving 2 spear and 1 bow so you have to lose another spear). Would it however be right that supporting bow effectively mean that disrupted spear fight at full dice?

the way the rounding works is a bit harsh in this situation but to be honest the spear are in trouble either way.

[grahambriggs]

Because, say, you were charging a fragmented 4 Spear/4 Bow Crusader BG and the commander decided the 4 dice to reduce were just the shooting ones on 6s rather than the front rank ones on 4s? I don't think support shooting should make you worse off than without it, but dice opportunism seems out as well - the system is built on allocating reductions and maybe I was just too tired and missing a rule somewhere but if not it should be there.

Cheers,

Mike

Maybe you're right Mike. I had thought that if you have to reduce numbers of dice yoiu do it as evenly as possible but if that won't work you get a choice what to drop. So the crusaders would not have this problem (8 dice for the spear plus 4 for the bow all halved - so 4 sp and 2 Bw)

Mike is right, in the example of 8 spear and 4 bow you have to lose 3 spear dice and 1 bow dice (2 out of 6 spear and 1 out of 3 bow leaving 2 spear and 1 bow so you have to lose another spear). Would it however be right that supporting bow effectively mean that disrupted spear fight at full dice?

the way the rounding works is a bit harsh in this situation but to be honest the spear are in trouble either way.

No you don't. Fragmented, so lose 1 in 2. Leaving 4 spear dice and 2 bow dice surely.

Is this the \Samson effect?

[stenic]

So a fair minded result is that dice lost should be removed as evenly as possible but the player choses where to start.

So in the case of my first example, 1 base per BG fighting , 2 for impact base, 1 for support, lose 1 per 3 - player picks any

Then 2 bases fighting, 4 impact dice, 2 support, lose 1 per 3 - take one from the 4 impact dice and 1 from the 2 support dice, leaving 3 impact, 1 shooting.

And so on.

Seems most reasonable.

Steve P

[hammy]

No you don't. Fragmented, so lose 1 in 2. Leaving 4 spear dice and 2 bow dice surely.

Is this the \Samson effect?

Aha, there was me assuming that because the post was talking about losing the 4 shooting dice and leaving the impact dice (of which there would actually be and thus only 1/3 of the dice that it was refering to disrupted troops.

The rules are clear, if you have N dice at the same POA or target and you must lose 1 per N then you have to lose one of these dice. You only get to choose which dice to lose when you have N dice evenly split between POAs and/ or targets.

Against fragmented supported spear you would lose half the 8 spear dice and half the 4 bow dice. Of course if you want to be pedantic this can't actually happen like that as crusader mixed BGs are never more than 6 bases strong

[grahambriggs]

Against fragmented supported spear you would lose half the 8 spear dice and half the 4 bow dice. Of course if you want to be pedantic this can't actually happen like that as crusader mixed BGs are never more than 6 bases strong

Yes they are. They are only limited to 6 bases if you use the army lists. In re-enactment games they can be made any size that suits.