Slitherine

"If a battle group must test for multiple breaks due to charges, or multiple breaks or lost commanders at the end of the phase, it only tests once but with a -1 adjustment to the dice for "more than one reason to test".

Richard clarified this under a posting I made a while ago - Paul is correct.

I think this means that point six is incorrect - CC and DD would not test for BB having broken as they had already tested for witnessing AA break.

Must have missed that - where is it?

How did he suggest applying the -1?

Not that I disagree per se but woud like to find it.

It is on pg 114 -

"If several BG's have to test at the same time for seeing friends break or commanders lost, their side's player decides which order to test them in. If further BG's break as a consequence, those that have already tested do not have to test again"

philqw78 wrote:2. Any further BGs that break do not cause tests on those that have already tested, but do cause tests on those that have not, applying a minus if there are multiple breaks in 3 MU.

So a BG taking a breaking friends test for friends breaking on their frag test is exempt from any further tests from that cause during the Impact Phase, and only takes the multiple penalty if there are multiple friends failing frag tests at the same point in the sequence of play? So, since a rout move and burst through have occurred between AA breaking and BB breaking, therefore frag-related testing for CC and DD is done after AA broke and they ignore BB's fragbagging later.

The only other causes for breaking before combat that come to mind are being burst through or being hit by flank/rear charge, and those tests are not immediate but at the end of the Impact Phase with any other friends/commanders lost break tests as part of a multiple cause test.

This all sound right?

shall wrote:I have mentioned before that basially I tend to declare charge direction all the time and if I say nothing its dead ahead. I think its much cleaner that way. WE tried to narrow it to "only when it mattered" but missed a few in our wording. AS a general pricniple I think it matters in the above sequence of events. So although we maybe haven't been that specific my personal view is I would rather just say you decalre a direction as you operationalise each charge.

Thoughts?

Si

Charge declaration is pre-production ramp-up and launch should not be operationalized prior to determining market direction in order to avoid incurring additional research and decision cycle burdens in conditional market launch synchronization planning and opportunistic competitive market counter-positioning, which will of course reduce addressable time frames for follow-on strategic initiatives.

(You can see why American (I dare not call it English) is the international language of business)

MikeK wrote:Question from a recent game:

Congratulations Mike - what a cluster!!!

I mean, who'd have thought it possible right? Sounded like a really good defensive formation that went sadly sadly sadly wrong.

Ian

Charge declaration is pre-production ramp-up and launch should not be operationalized prior to determining market direction in order to avoid incurring additional research and decision cycle burdens in conditional market launch synchronization planning and opportunistic competitive market counter-positioning, which will of course reduce addressable time frames for follow-on strategic initiatives.

(You can see why American (I dare not call it English) is the international language of business)

Absolutely. As a management consultant that all makes good sense to me.

Si

"If a battle group must test for multiple breaks due to charges, or multiple breaks or lost commanders at the end of the phase, it only tests once but with a -1 adjustment to the dice for "more than one reason to test".

Richard clarified this under a posting I made a while ago - Paul is correct.

I think this means that point six is incorrect - CC and DD would not test for BB having broken as they had already tested for witnessing AA break.

Must have missed that - where is it?

How did he suggest applying the -1?

Not that I disagree per se but woud like to find it.

It is on pg 114 -

"If several BG's have to test at the same time for seeing friends break or commanders lost, their side's player decides which order to test them in. If further BG's break as a consequence, those that have already tested do not have to test again"

Yes I know where it says that in the rules thank you where did Richard clarify that it applied to such a situation? In the move sequence you can argue this is at the same time or not .... hence my interest. Also how do you apply the -1 if they have already tested and passed and another one comes up?

Looking to find Richard response to you previous stream.

Si

Phil already persuaded me that each BG only tests once at most prior to Impact combat for fragbagged friends, meaning no more crushing compound CTs in complex situations. It is easily explained and administered and doesn't penalize the inactive player for artifacts of sequencing.

Mike

Yes I know where it says that in the rules thank you Rolling Eyes where did Richard clarify that it applied to such a situation?

Can't remember. You will just have to take my word for it

Anyway - why wouldn't it apply in this scenario?

A unit breaks, all units within 3" test. If one of those unit breaks then all units have to test if within 3". If they have already tested then they dont'?

Don't see where the confusion is?

If two Units break within 3" and a unit has to test then that would make a -1

dave_r wrote:
A unit breaks, all units within 3" test. If one of those unit breaks then all units have to test if within 3". If they have already tested then they dont'?

The alternative is the dice for the tests stay until all tests are resolved and you go back and recalculate if multiple reasons. An added complication if that is what you want.

It is the "immediate" testing for friendly fragmented routs that raises the issue - the intent and effect is that the test be taken and results implemented immediately. Hard to square this with the separation in sequencing Leaving the test dice if the final result was a 7 would work since a second fragbagging causes an additional -1 to bring it down to a 6. Any other pass or fail would still pass or fail if nothing else changed.

Took this one off-line with RBS and Terry as something was bothering me.

We all have the same view of it:

Page 114 talks about what happens if BGs have to test at the same time. We mean that as written. At the same time = simulatneous and therefore a situation where the player would have a choice of the order in which they test. The last sentence is a specific exception to that rule only that means you do not test again.

Page 113/4 on the -1 is for multiple causes at a point in time and only relelvant to that.

The turn sequence specifically you resolve tests for FRG and tests if they break, nd is in twice in fact.

So in the above sequence you can get multiple tests.

FWIW this was part of the reason we put FRG in specifically that way. It is a way to finish off an already weakened army. Of course if you try hard you may be able to get a calamity to happen as above, but it takes some doing in both effort and dice rolling - well done!!

Si