Slitherine

Posted: **Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:15 am**

marshalney2000 wrote:What is the new initiative rule?

PRE-BATTLE INITIATIVE
Historically the best led armies often succeeded in fighting their battles on ground of their own choosing, whether defending their home territory or invading enemy territory. Cavalry superiority also helped.

Pre-Battle Initiative Modifiers
+2 C-in-C is Inspired Commander
+1 C-in-C is Field Commander
+1 Army has 10-24 bases of Cavalry, Light Horse, Camelry or Light Chariots
+2 Army has 25 or more bases of Cavalry, Light Horse, Camelry or Light Chariots

The army??™s total initiative modifier is pre-calculated and included in its Order of March ??“ see above.

Each side rolls 1d6 and adds their total initiative modifier. If the total scores are equal roll again. The high scorer has the Pre-Battle Initiative.

Each army list has a set of territory types that the army/nation typically occupied. The side with initiative chooses a territory type from those available to either army as specified in its official army list. Terrain is then chosen and placed according to this territory type.

TERRAIN CHOICE AND PLACEMENT

.......

The player whose side has initiative selects one of the 2 compulsory pieces and from 2 to 4 other selections from the list of available terrain. His total pieces including compulsories cannot exceed the maximum of any type. Only the player whose side has initiative can choose a river, a coastline, or a village. He cannot choose both a river and a coast.

The other side??™s player then selects the other compulsory piece and from 2 to 4 other selections from the list of available terrain. He cannot select any pieces that, together with those chosen by the other side would exceed the maximum of that type. Open areas will block other terrain placement to some degree.

All terrain pieces are selected by both players before any are placed on the table.

The order in which terrain is placed is as follows:
1. The player with initiative places any river or coast.
2. The player with initiative places any village, then any road.
3. The player with initiative places his compulsory item.
4. The other player places his compulsory item.
5. The player with initiative places any open area(s).
6. The other player places any open area(s).
7. The player with initiative places his remaining pieces.
8. The other player places his remaining pieces.
9. Open area pieces are removed from the table.

...........................

??? The side without pre-battle initiative starts deploying first and moves first.

Posted: **Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:49 pm**

rbodleyscott wrote:
vincent wrote:1) On one occasion, a LF BG managed to catch an evading LF BG in the back. The impact phase did not gave it an advantage since the LF passed the CT (they were not disrupted since only skirmishers caught them, nor did the unsecure flank modifier apply). The evade move had finished on a hill. In the melee phase, the evading LF got a POA due to being uphill. I think that the uphill advantage should be given only if the unit is standing uphill, or charging downhill, but to get it while retiring looks strange to me.
The intention is that evaders who are hit count as being attacked in flank/rear - this will be clarified. Hence they are automatically on --, and the attackers are on ++.

This apply only in the impact phase. If the evaders manage to survive the resulting CT, then they turned around during the movement phase and the melee phase is a normal one.
In the game we played, the chargers were a 4 bases chariot runners BG, the evaders a similar 8 bases group. The charge had been combined with a light chariot charge, which is why the target choose to evade despite the advantage in numbers. The chargers were slightly off front so had only 1 base touching, i.e. 2 dices in the impact phase. They got only 1 resulting hit, which meant that the CT was without any malus (i.e. 58% chance survive). After the chargers shifted to align and the evaders turned, the melee was 4 bases against 6, with a negative PoA due to the uphill. In the next melee phase, during the evaders bound, they shifted again (8 dices to 3 since the chargers had lost a base). The chargers failed badly the CT and routed.
Part of the problem was due to the fact that the chargers had to complete 2 melees before the chariot which had forced the evade could intervene again. This ratio of 2 melee phases (3 if you count the impact) between each movement is a major building block of AoW but I have a feeling that this gives another advantage to high quality troops and that maneuvering to get to the flanks might take too long to be effective in many cases.
Rereading the rules, I just found that we missed a factor in the chargers' advantage. The evaders should have been disrupted: the drop of cohesion applies unless the target are "non-skirmishers contacted by skirmishers".
In order to solve the issue above, I think that removing the uphill PoA to evaders could be more trouble than it's worth, especially since it involves a memory effect that you wish to reduce to the minimum and since the uphill position was not critical in the above scenario (it just made matters worse, but the fight was already quite unbalanced against the chargers). I would therefore suggest one measure:

"evaders caught in the back turn only the bases contacted in the first movement phase after the impact."

Note that this may already be inferred from the text on "movement when in combat" (p33 of 4.06 version) which allow troops to be in different orientations when caught in the back, although it would be better to clarify it.
With that clarification, the first melee after being caught would be disrupted and one rank against 2, removing most of the number advantages enjoyed by the evaders in our scenario above. If the evaders manage to survive the impact and the first melee, then they will be able, during their next move, to completely turn around and try to recover.
I wander whether non-skirmishers evaders caught in the back should also drop a cohesion level even if caught by skirmishers. If so, just change the sentence "non-skirmishers standing and contacted by skirmishers (evaders always drop a cohesion level if caught)".

rbodleyscott wrote:
2) How are bases removed from a BG after failed death rolls? In particular, if a BG is engaged in melee, can you remove front rank bases which are engaged in melee if they have no second rank, thereby reducing the BG's frontage, hence the number of opponent dices if it already had overlaps? Olivier thinks that all second ranks bases should be removed before a front rank base is removed. He might be right. What is your opinion?
We are giving this thought. What we don't want is people being able to remove rear rank psiloi in preference to front rankers. The intention of the rules is that you remove a base of front rank type and shuffle the other ranks forward. I agree that the frontage of the BG should not be reduced if it is possible to remove a base from a place where the BG is more than one rank deep.

I suggest the following: "Bases removed should be from the front rank, with rear ranks coming up forward to fill any resulting gap if available. A BG must therefore keep the same frontage during the whole combat until it wins or breaks."
In the case of a BG deployed in a single line, you can either:

* drop the "bases must remain in contact" obligation and force it to keep the 2 end-of-line bases and split the remaining bases equally in the middle
* allow a single line BG to reduce its frontage by removing an end-of-line base with the obligation that any enemy troop already engaged in combat (even if only as an overlap) must remain so (possibly only as an overlap) unless losing contact is unavoidable on both line ends.

I would prefer the first option, but it might lead to complex positions and the second option is easier to play/umpire.

Posted: **Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:24 pm**

rbodleyscott wrote:
vincent wrote:
1) On one occasion, a LF BG managed to catch an evading LF BG in the back. The impact phase did not gave it an advantage since the LF passed the CT (they were not disrupted since only skirmishers caught them, nor did the unsecure flank modifier apply). The evade move had finished on a hill. In the melee phase, the evading LF got a POA due to being uphill. I think that the uphill advantage should be given only if the unit is standing uphill, or charging downhill, but to get it while retiring looks strange to me.

The intention is that evaders who are hit count as being attacked in flank/rear - this will be clarified. Hence they are automatically on --, and the attackers are on ++.

This apply only in the impact phase. If the evaders manage to survive the resulting CT, then they turned around during the movement phase and the melee phase is a normal one.
In the game we played, the chargers were a 4 bases chariot runners BG, the evaders a similar 8 bases group. The charge had been combined with a light chariot charge, which is why the target choose to evade despite the advantage in numbers. The chargers were slightly off front so had only 1 base touching, i.e. 2 dices in the impact phase. They got only 1 resulting hit, which meant that the CT was without any malus (i.e. 58% chance survive). After the chargers shifted to align and the evaders turned, the melee was 4 bases against 6, with a negative PoA due to the uphill. In the next melee phase, during the evaders bound, they shifted again (8 dices to 3 since the chargers had lost a base). The chargers failed badly the CT and routed.
Part of the problem was due to the fact that the chargers had to complete 2 melees before the chariot which had forced the evade could intervene again. This ratio of 2 melee phases (3 if you count the impact) between each movement is a major building block of AoW but I have a feeling that this gives another advantage to high quality troops and that maneuvering to get to the flanks might take too long to be effective in many cases.
Rereading the rules, I just found that we missed a factor in the chargers' advantage. The evaders should have been disrupted: the drop of cohesion applies unless the target are "non-skirmishers contacted by skirmishers".
In order to solve the issue above, I think that removing the uphill PoA to evaders could be more trouble than it's worth, especially since it involves a memory effect that you wish to reduce to the minimum and since the uphill position was not critical in the above scenario (it just made matters worse, but the fight was already quite unbalanced against the chargers). I would therefore suggest one measure:
"evaders caught in the back turn only the bases contacted in the first movement phase after the impact."
Note that this may already be inferred from the text on "movement when in combat" (p33 of 4.06 version) which allow troops to be in different orientations when caught in the back, although it would be better to clarify it.
With that clarification, the first melee after being caught would be disrupted and one rank against 2, removing most of the number advantages enjoyed by the evaders in our scenario above. If the evaders manage to survive the impact and the first melee, then they will be able, during their next move, to completely turn around and try to recover.
I wander whether non-skirmishers evaders caught in the back should also drop a cohesion level even if caught by skirmishers. If so, just change the sentence "non-skirmishers standing and contacted by skirmishers (evaders always drop a cohesion level if caught)".

I a a little puzzled so let me know if what follows doesn't alter the perspective rather. If i get it right Vincent there were 4 bases of LF running into the rear of 8 bases of LF.

Those charged are DISR automatically. If you have a direct charge then it will be 4 dice vs 3 dice at impact. The 4 dice are on a ++ so should get 2.66 hits. The three dice 1. Its pretty disastrous. On average this forces a test while DISR on a -3! Not to rout is fortunate - 6 or less and you do so 38% chance. To avoid a drop to WAV very difficult indeed.

If the evaders live through all that ither due to good dice or beacuse your charge is offset and struggles to make contact it seems pretty reasonable that their greater numbers adn the fact that they ran back up a hill will get you in the end.

As far as I can teel from your comments missing the DISR and having a glancing charge is the issue. This would recude it to 2 dice vs 2 dice. Likely to win and force a test. 2/3rd of the time the evaders need an 7 to pass their CT, 1/3rd an 8 IIRC. [-1 for DISR and -1 for the 2-0 resultwhich is quite likely given 3s and 5s]. Still a good chance of a result but not the certainy it would be if lined up. Part of the price f the fancy double charge I suspect.

Missing the DISR - its a very big difference if you run it through. It also means that int he meleee at 6 vs 4 it is even except for the hill effect.

Hope that helps.

Si

Posted: **Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:28 pm**

rbodleyscott wrote:
Quote:
2) How are bases removed from a BG after failed death rolls? In particular, if a BG is engaged in melee, can you remove front rank bases which are engaged in melee if they have no second rank, thereby reducing the BG's frontage, hence the number of opponent dices if it already had overlaps? Olivier thinks that all second ranks bases should be removed before a front rank base is removed. He might be right. What is your opinion?

We are giving this thought. What we don't want is people being able to remove rear rank psiloi in preference to front rankers. The intention of the rules is that you remove a base of front rank type and shuffle the other ranks forward. I agree that the frontage of the BG should not be reduced if it is possible to remove a base from a place where the BG is more than one rank deep.

I suggest the following: "Bases removed should be from the front rank, with rear ranks coming up forward to fill any resulting gap if available. A BG must therefore keep the same frontage during the whole combat until it wins or breaks."
In the case of a BG deployed in a single line, you can either:
* drop the "bases must remain in contact" obligation and force it to keep the 2 end-of-line bases and split the remaining bases equally in the middle
* allow a single line BG to reduce its frontage by removing an end-of-line base with the obligation that any enemy troop already engaged in combat (even if only as an overlap) must remain so (possibly only as an overlap) unless losing contact is unavoidable on both line ends.
I would prefer the first option, but it might lead to complex positions and the second option is easier to play/umpire.

Thanks Vincent. Useful stuff. A topic we are thinking about at present. I think the thinning out effect is good. It needs to be edge ones if there is no such thing possible. We probably needed a sequence of events and an order.

Si

_________________

Posted: **Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:36 pm**

Some photos of the game with Olivier and attached queries/remarks.

1) shooting gap

In the above photo, can the right archer element (the one next to the dice) shoot at the chariot?
The gap between the left element and the javelinmen to the front is less than 4cm wide, so shooting might not be possible. Gap measurement is always a trouble and I would like an advice on this one.
During the game, we allowed both archer elements to shoot. With the javelinmen, they inflicted 2 hits which caused the chariot to test cohesion and become disrupted. This was quite instrumental in stopping the charge (the chariots eventualy reached auto break on casualties).

2) maneuvering in front of the enemy
The initial position is as follow:

The egyptian archers are more than 4cm (measured by the black base) away from the Gasgan impact foot and are looking for a quick escape. I found it in a forward flee, contracting to get pass the flank as follow:

The move seems to be legal, yet I cannot help feeling it was dubious to say the least (Olivier certainly did feel so when I executed the maneuver

).
Note that since the Gasgan are undrilled, they require a CMT to turn or wheel and move toward the archers. This is a typical case where requiring a CMT to be able to wheel toward the nearest enemy looks really gamey.
Opinions?

Posted: **Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:21 pm**

Some photos of the game with Olivier and attached queries/remarks.

1) shooting gap

In the above photo, can the right archer element (the one next to the dice) shoot at the chariot?
The gap between the left element and the javelinmen to the front is less than 4cm wide, so shooting might not be possible. Gap measurement is always a trouble and I would like an advice on this one.
During the game, we allowed both archer elements to shoot. With the javelinmen, they inflicted 2 hits which caused the chariot to test cohesion and become disrupted. This was quite instrumental in stopping the charge (the chariots eventualy reached auto break on casualties).

The principle is that we allow shooting through a 20mm gap. I think we say that as between enemy elements in the rules so we will need to work on the words. Can't see at the moment why we would make it different for own bases or terrain. Assuming the toher Ps unit is the same army (judging by the bases) the answer is yes. Work on the 20mm gap theory for now until we firm up some sentences. A lot fo wording improvements are likely at Usk where we have the authors together.

2) maneuvering in front of the enemy
The initial position is as follow:

The egyptian archers are more than 4cm (measured by the black base) away from the Gasgan impact foot and are looking for a quick escape. I found it in a forward flee, contracting to get pass the flank as follow:

The move seems to be legal, yet I cannot help feeling it was dubious to say the least (Olivier certainly did feel so when I executed the maneuver ).
Note that since the Gasgan are undrilled, they require a CMT to turn or wheel and move toward the archers. This is a typical case where requiring a CMT to be able to wheel toward the nearest enemy looks really gamey.
Opinions?

It is legal at present and possible due to the gasgans been alone with nothing on their flank. Whether it is a good move or not I don't know? Whether desirable or not I am not sure either. I guess the fear is that the drilled troops might outrun them this way. A good one for us to think about. It does seem a bit gamey I must admit.

We could allow a wheel/turn inside 6MU for free if it takes you nearer to enemy. This would solve many of these issues I think.
I think I prefer an allowed counter to make it a bad move than anything than limits it due to having friends to front so far away. View?

Si

Slitherine

After game questions