Slitherine

It doesn't matter what the rest of the rulebook says; it's what this specific section that matters. Or, to put it another way, the rules are not written with a generic rule structure in mind.

And in this case you could read it as either 1 point or 2, in my opinion. It would indeed be useful if the FAQ were updated.

IT may be worth taking into account that a fragged unit that evades of table has to survive being charged, and if it fails routs 2pts, if it survives 1pt which justs adds to the game as superior have a slightly better chance than average to evade of table.

I accept that it is ambiguous.

As Nik says, I have always ruled it as 1 point.

In V2 it will be crystal clear that it is 1 point.

The reason for not wanting it to be 2 points is because there is then an incentive for the fragged BG to stand and fight rather than evade (because it might by a miracle win, or at least survive), which is rather silly.

rbodleyscott wrote:The reason for not wanting it to be 2 points is because there is then an incentive for the fragged BG to stand and fight rather than evade (because it might by a miracle win, or at least survive), which is rather silly.

But this also means that a BG without missile weapons have only a poor chance of getting their deserved 2AP after chasing it across the table. BG that pursue it to the edge of the table have to stand and stare at it, hoping that some missile troops will arrive to shoot it, instead of charging it off never to be seen again.

Also a fragged BG of single deep cav or 6 lights could shoot those watching it to rout, especially with the minus 1 to CT for reaching the enemy's table edge.

Also also your view encourages the view that a player should therefore be able to move BG off the table voluntarily rather than allow it to hang around to be shot.

Also also also one could imagine the army's general wishing to have it hang around and fight rather than never be seen again on the day of battle. If it fails the test to stand (if light charged by battle troops) or failed the CT for charged whilst fragged it made its own (sensible) mind up.

Also also also also Moose bites can be very nasty

philqw78 wrote:But this also means that a BG without missile weapons have only a poor chance of getting their deserved 2AP after chasing it across the table.

If a BG without missile weapons has chased it across the table it is not particularly likely to be Fragmented anyway. If the 2AP are deserved for chasing a BG across the table then it should be 2AP for any BG evading off table, not just a Fragmented one.

A foot BG catches a Single rank Cav BG evade. The cav are fragmented then break off, turn around and walk away.

How? You can only evade if charged.

rbodleyscott wrote:I accept that it is ambiguous.

As Nik says, I have always ruled it as 1 point.

In V2 it will be crystal clear that it is 1 point.

The reason for not wanting it to be 2 points is because there is then an incentive for the fragged BG to stand and fight rather than evade (because it might by a miracle win, or at least survive), which is rather silly.

That is good enough for me. 1 point only if a fragged BG evades off table. Thanks for replying. Helps a lot.

A foot BG catches a Single rank Cav BG evade. The cav are fragmented then break off, turn around and walk away.

If you want to put a cav BG in single line and then evade them off table to avoid fighting a charging infantry BG, that doesn't bother me at all. First of all, cav usually outdistance infantry. Second, if you want to give up 70 or so points of your army and give me 1-point while doing so, 'thank-you very much'.

bbotus wrote:If you want to put a cav BG in single line and then evade them off table to avoid fighting a charging infantry BG, that doesn't bother me at all. First of all, cav usually outdistance infantry. Second, if you want to give up 70 or so points of your army and give me 1-point while doing so, 'thank-you very much'.

You don't play enough and you misquote.

If I manage to frag a cav BG and push it to the edge of the table where is the reward in seeing it run off the table. Oh its exactly the same as forcing a BG that is in perfect order off the table. Very demoralising to the infantry player. And one of the reasons most infantry armies are sh!t in this game

philqw78 wrote:If I manage to frag a cav BG and push it to the edge of the table where is the reward in seeing it run off the table. Oh its exactly the same as forcing a BG that is in perfect order off the table. Very demoralising to the infantry player. And one of the reasons most infantry armies are sh!t in this game

To put a finer point on it. Phil and I had a game where had the umpire ruled it was two points I would have been i forget 0 or 1 points off breaking his army. Making some other areas of interest of me trying to chase down his jello coated LH. But when the umpire made clear that it would be 1 point both Phil and I realized the remaining 45+ minutes could be spent drinking beer and talking about Phil's other boffo move.

In other words i didn't get sufficient satisfaction for kicking the tar out of Phil. Now what fun is that?

The larger point is that the games need a mechanism for a fulfilling and timely conclusion. This is a marginal debate but we shouldn't err in favor of unfulfilling.

What Dan said. He deserved to win the game, but couldn't.

What Dan said. He deserved to win the game, but couldn't.

OK, let's see, you have 45 minutes left and can't decide a game because of 1 attrition point because Phil is evading lots of LH all over the board and Dan can't seem to pin one more of them. Have I got that right? Now, time's up, and you count up AT points for both sides. Someone is bound to win unless there is only a 0 or 1 point AT difference. So someone did win or Dan was also beat up pretty badly and really didn't deserve to win.

Still don't see a problem.

bbotus wrote:

What Dan said. He deserved to win the game, but couldn't.

OK, let's see, you have 45 minutes left and can't decide a game because of 1 attrition point because Phil is evading lots of LH all over the board and Dan can't seem to pin one more of them. Have I got that right? Now, time's up, and you count up AT points for both sides. Someone is bound to win unless there is only a 0 or 1 point AT difference. So someone did win or Dan was also beat up pretty badly and really didn't deserve to win.

Still don't see a problem.

Win versus broken to be clearer.

E.G.
I've broken Ruddock.
I've had a winning draw versus Phil.

I understand why it seems not a big deal, but if you play enough in enough places having the inability to force a conclusion in a goodly amount of time does not make for excitement. Again its not a gigantic issues, its a trend to be wary of.

bbotus wrote:

What Dan said. He deserved to win the game, but couldn't.

OK, let's see, you have 45 minutes left and can't decide a game because of 1 attrition point because Phil is evading lots of LH all over the board and Dan can't seem to pin one more of them. Have I got that right? Now, time's up, and you count up AT points for both sides. Someone is bound to win unless there is only a 0 or 1 point AT difference. So someone did win or Dan was also beat up pretty badly and really didn't deserve to win.

Still don't see a problem.

Competiton scoring usually has a significant bonus for breaking the enemy army

Competiton scoring usually has a significant bonus for breaking the enemy army

OK, so it is a competition scoring issue, not an issue with the rules. Now I understand.

It is to some extent, however in a non competition scenario it can be frustrating to chase mounted off the table....and in some cases only achieve a draw......

I hope all this will be cleaned up with version 2. Sounds like one big mess with reason behind each one.

Razorbacjac wrote:I hope all this will be cleaned up with version 2. Sounds like one big mess with reason behind each one.

Big overstates. Annoying and not infrequently noticed is moer like it. We all suspect V2 will be the triumph of RBS's view.

hazelbark wrote:E.G.
I've broken Ruddock.
I've had a winning draw versus Phil.

The high point of Dan's career and the low point of mine.

grahambriggs wrote:

bbotus wrote:

What Dan said. He deserved to win the game, but couldn't.

OK, let's see, you have 45 minutes left and can't decide a game because of 1 attrition point because Phil is evading lots of LH all over the board and Dan can't seem to pin one more of them. Have I got that right? Now, time's up, and you count up AT points for both sides. Someone is bound to win unless there is only a 0 or 1 point AT difference. So someone did win or Dan was also beat up pretty badly and really didn't deserve to win.

Still don't see a problem.

Competiton scoring usually has a significant bonus for breaking the enemy army

it worked for me