Instant comments on first read

[petedalby]

The perfect cue for me to request, once again, that break-offs be conducted as part of the melee outcome phase, rather than waiting for the JAP. If you don't do it straight away it's really easy to miss it.

What do we lose by moving this to the melee phase?

Pete

[madaxeman]

The perfect cue for me to request, once again, that break-offs be conducted as part of the melee outcome phase, rather than waiting for the JAP. If you don't do it straight away it's really easy to miss it.

What do we lose by moving this to the melee phase?

Pete

We werent able to find the breakoff phase in the rules - and anyway, I wanted them to hang on in there to hold the legionaries and keep away overplaps once my main blocks of hairies charged in. As they didnt get fragged, due to good morale class, once they had gotten to 2 bases (out of 4 initial) it seemed no point in breaking off, as any more losses and they would autobreak and evaporate anyway !

[madaxeman]

Both sides always fight with the same number of bases in the impact phase - the lower number of bases in contact. In this case 1 base, therefore 2 dice each. The shuffling around and conforming occurs in the manoeuvre phase, between the impact and melee phases.

But doesn't the advancing/echeloning forward that is allowed as part of the charge mean that the situation Tim describes can occur ??

Yes, but both sides have to fight with the lower number of bases in contact. So if 2 bases contact 1, both sides fight with 1. If it makes a difference, the player with the higher number of bases in contact can choose which one to drop.

This rule is there specifically to stop advantage being gained from contacting the enemy in weird and wonderful ways.

..again, a rule we didnt find at the time, and like the second move thingy, fairly fundamental perhaps?

[rbodleyscott]

..again, a rule we didnt find at the time, and like the second move thingy, fairly fundamental perhaps?

It is in the "DECIDING HOW MANY DICE TO ROLL" section. (P.45 approx)

Both sides fight with the same number of bases determined as follows:
• If both sides have an equal number of bases eligible to fight, all of them fight. As far as possible, these are paired off to fight, so that each base fights one enemy base. If it is possible to do this in more than one way, the active player chooses which.
• If the number of eligible bases is unequal, both sides fight with the lower number of bases. The side with the higher number of bases chooses which of his bases will not fight. His choice must leave every eligible enemy base paired off against one of his.

-----------------------

We werent able to find the breakoff phase in the rules - and anyway, I wanted them to hang on in there to hold the legionaries and keep away overplaps once my main blocks of hairies charged in. As they didnt get fragged, due to good morale class, once they had gotten to 2 bases (out of 4 initial) it seemed no point in breaking off, as any more losses and they would autobreak and evaporate anyway !

It is in the Joint Action Phase section. (It isn't optional.) (P.59 approx)

[malekithau]

To avoid repeating so many rules cross indexing really needs to be done as a priority. I am sure it will be in the final version but lack of index/contents and crossindexing is very frustrating for new users (I'm aware of the corrupted document). A lot of the rules are quite simple and easy to remember after a couple of games but when you need to check something it can be so hard to find it.

[shall]

The last we heard there was goingt to be colour coding ont he page edges to make everything easy to find and an overall index at the front. It looked really nice in draft form.

Si

[madaxeman]

..again, a rule we didnt find at the time, and like the second move thingy, fairly fundamental perhaps?

It is in the "DECIDING HOW MANY DICE TO ROLL" section. (P.45 approx)

Sorry, never got to it - we were looking how to make a legal contact and step forwards correctly around page 25/6 - page 45 is too late IMO.

-----------------------

We werent able to find the breakoff phase in the rules - and anyway, I wanted them to hang on in there to hold the legionaries and keep away overplaps once my main blocks of hairies charged in. As they didnt get fragged, due to good morale class, once they had gotten to 2 bases (out of 4 initial) it seemed no point in breaking off, as any more losses and they would autobreak and evaporate anyway !

It is in the Joint Action Phase section. (It isn't optional.) (P.59 approx)

Again, too late for us - we had started the bounds again!

Maybe this means Pete is right, its a direct consequence of a charge and a combat, so should be in combat phase - breaks and cohesion tests are.... and as it seems you MUST break off from un-disrupted foot thats even more reason for it to be in this phase as far as I can see - "if your foot opponents remain steady, mounted break off".

It makes me even more surprised at the lack of a POA for mounted against non-steady foot as well - isnt it better to bounce off and charge in again for another even-dice impact phase rather than disrupt them and get sucked into a "more bodies against less" combat ?

[shall]

Thank you Mad Axeman,

It makes me even more surprised at the lack of a POA for mounted against non-steady foot as well - isnt it better to bounce off and charge in again for another even-dice impact phase rather than disrupt them and get sucked into a "more bodies against less" combat ?

In practice there are quite a few POAs that do apply because of un-steay which make the need for an overriding one a unecessary, and ther eis always a -1/3rd reduction in dice for the DISRed as well. It is set up to be swung by wether wepaonry and training would give you a big benefit for fighting unsteady troops or not.......and how much it bothers the foot troops. So more varied around the concept.

So for instance:

Spears and Pikes lose POA's when they drop from steady at different stages
Swordsmen gain POAs unless their opponents are steady Pike or Spear - in which case you can't get to them

So Mtd vs non-steady foot gets either:

1/3rd dice reduction if no great shakes in POAs on either side - eg. Mtd with just Bw POA still get this benefit

A single + swing sometimes - eg.if Sp become unsteady the swordsmen + suddenly cuts in for the Mtd if thay have one

A ++ swing sometimes by the foot losing a + and the Mtd gaining a +. E.g. if Sp drop to Frag they lose their + as well.

So a wider spread of benefits of foot becoming unsteady that depends on what you have as mounted and what has been unsteaied..for a richer range of possibilities.

Again, too late for us - we had started the bounds again!

Maybe this means Pete is right, its a direct consequence of a charge and a combat, so should be in combat phase - breaks and cohesion tests are.... and as it seems you MUST break off from un-disrupted foot thats even more reason for it to be in this phase as far as I can see - "if your foot opponents remain steady, mounted break off".

On the Break Off point isn't it just the same to you if it was the first step in JAP sof lowde right off the back of the combats? There is an important technical reason for keeping it in the JAP - at times troops breaking off are not ones the are owned by the active player. I have a few times had melees where I went DISR with foot troops and the mounted stayed in and my general bolstered tham back to STDY in my go. If you take break offs out of the JAP then the mounted troop now have to stay in combat and get done over, when realistically they should fall back and regroup. Best we felt therefore to keep it there.

Any other views?

Cheers

Si

[petedalby]

If you take break offs out of the JAP then the mounted troop now have to stay in combat and get done over, when realistically they should fall back and regroup. Best we felt therefore to keep it there.

I don't understand the timing issue here? Break-offs occur before bolstering.

So if the foot aren't Steady - the Mounted stay in combat. If the Foot are then bolstered later in the JAP, the Mounted still stay in?

I know I'm starting to look like a dog with a bone on this but on Page 44 Combat Mechanism, the final bullet is 'Make compulsory moves as a result of combat'. That suggests that a Break Off should fit very appropriately here?

I fail to see what benefit we gain from having the Break Off in the JAP - but I and others find it easy to forget if it's not a combat outcome.

Apologies for going on!

Pete

[lawrenceg]

On the Break Off point isn't it just the same to you if it was the first step in JAP sof lowde right off the back of the combats? There is an important technical reason for keeping it in the JAP - at times troops breaking off are not ones the are owned by the active player. I have a few times had melees where I went DISR with foot troops and the mounted stayed in and my general bolstered tham back to STDY in my go. If you take break offs out of the JAP then the mounted troop now have to stay in combat and get done over, when realistically they should fall back and regroup. Best we felt therefore to keep it there.

Any other views?

Why not put it in both the melee and JAP phases? We have routs in the combat phases and the JAP so why not break-offs?

Main description in the melee phase section - so people don't forget it. It does not matter whose troops break off. The inactive player can intercept and evade, why not break off too?

In the JAP section a note at the end of bolstering: If all foot opponents of a mounted BG are now steady, the mounted break off.

[shall]

We'll keep consdiering it

Dog with a bone is fine.....that's what we want form you guys if you feel passionately about something

Yes bolstering comes after break-offs now you are correct, but the issue still occurs in the right circumstances - and did. Can happen over an extended melee over 3-4 bounds quite easily - in fact I had it vs Hammy with some Indaidn chariots vs Swiss Pikes on 3 separate occasions.

What is confusing me is that in the sequence it is either the last of MELEE or the first of JAP - what's the difference its in the same place in the sequence either way.

I must be missing something?

Si

[petedalby]

What is confusing me is that in the sequence it is either the last of MELEE or the first of JAP - what's the difference its in the same place in the sequence either way.

The difference for me is that you complete each combat in turn. So just as you do Routs and Pursuits so you would do Break Offs. It has a logical sequence to it.

Leaving it to the JAP phase means that you have to go back and find them. You're effectively touching something twice and it increases the risk of missing it.

Pete

[shall]

Do you do routs as you finish combats as well then?

We do them all at the end of a phase - so you go back to these anyway don't you?

I see what you mean - alebit that it doesn't bother me much.

What do others find?

Si

[rogerg]

Breaking off as the final act of the melee phase would be easier to remember. Perhaps it is because routs are more signifcant, or that they include troops not in melee, that we remember them in the JAP. Whatever the reason, remembering break-offs does seem to be difficult. I believe it would be easier to have them at the end of the melee phase.

[jre]

We have managed to forget routs, some times, although less often now that we use markers. We often forget break-offs, unless the break off is a deliberate tactic.

We could use a marker, I suppose, but we already have too many. The main concern is if someone else along the line breaks, or a general dies, a group that was steady at melee end may not be steady at JAP.

What about making it voluntary, for both players? The active player decides if any eligible BG (both sides) will break off, or not. If he does not break off, the inactive player can make them break off anyway. If both want the mounted to stay in, well, so it stays. If both forget, clearly they also want it to stick in...

Less time lost moving forwards and backwards, or discussing if it is correct to push them back during the following impact phase. The disadvantage (or advantage) is that not reminding your opponent is not cheating.

José

[lawrenceg]

The main concern is if someone else along the line breaks, or a general dies, a group that was steady at melee end may not be steady at JAP.

This is a very good point. Plus the one that troops unsteady at the start of the JAP may have rallied by the end of it. The cohesion and contact status can change in different ways at various times during various phases. Tricky, isn't it.

Is the underlying principle that mounted should not fight two melees in a row against entirely steady foot?

OR is it that mounted should break off at any time when it looks as though they are not making progress?

I suspect the real "problem" is not the timing of break offs, but the way to make sure it does not get forgotten in the turn sequence.

Change the phase name to "Break-off and Joint Action Phase"?

[rogerg]

Ingenious! Inspired! If only it was a shorter name.

[shall]

My sense too as there are several techincal reasons for leaving it amnd the challenge is to make it more memorable..........we could call it the BOG pahase......break offs and generals..........

The principle Lawrence is this....

Mounted troops do not stay in for a further bound of melee if they perceive little prospect of success at the time they decide (slightly different to either of the above).

• Thus is troops are back to STDY for some reason by the time they have completed their actions they should retire and try again - but if they beocme steady throguh general action later this is a "nasty" shoick for the mounted that they must ride out for a bound of combat before getting away.
  
  Similarly if some troops have wobbled for reason other than themselves to create an opportunity the should stick around - thus a pleasant surprise.

So my solution is as follows

At then end of melee, any troops that are to break off are turned arpound 180 degrees to face backwards as a reminder for the JAP.

As we have Broken counters next to any other troops facing backwards this will work fine I suspect. Tbis way you can remember to mark them up at the end of the melee - so Pete can remember to do this - and its hard to miss the,m when you skim the tabletop during the JAP (after all with 10-15 BGs who doesnt take a quick look at them all before deciding what to do with commanders (or if you don't, you should!)

Views?

[rogerg]

After all this discussion we will probably not forget break offs again. I might read JAP from now on, but I will be thinking 'break off and...

[petedalby]

Anything that helps me remember has to be a good thing!

It's an age thing!!

Pete