What constitutes "STEADY"?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:12 pm

I have to add that I would also say you were talking utter bollocks. I would then continue with the game accepting your sh*te ruling, and watch my lancers be unable to break off from the spear with 1 rank in severely disordering terrain or pike with three ranks in severely disordering terrain, but fighting at full POA's, as they are not steady. Do I get to count my sword? THe base cancelling the POA is steady.

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:27 pm

So we seem to have established that except for support shooters at impact (a special case), it is only front rank bases that have POAs. So judgements about POAs are made with regard to the front rank's situation.

What does "Extra for 4th rank of Pikemen in open terrain" mean?

Option A.
If the front rank of pikemen is in open terrain, add a + POA if there is a 4th rank of pike behind it (regardless of the "situation" of that 4th rank: in the OP severly disordered).

Option B.
If all 4 ranks of pikemen are in open terrain, add a + POA

Seems Nik and Pete favour A and Phil favours B.

I favour B as it seems ludicrous that a pike phalanx with its arse all higgledepigildee in some difficult ground should get a "depth" bonus, just the same as if it was in the open. The phalanx in difficult ground should be punished relative to the same phalanx in open terrain. That's how I would rule if asked.

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:29 pm

While disorder or severe disorder, or being in clear terrain, can be judged on a stand by stand basis, are individual stands considered to be "steady" or is that only a meaningful attribute for a BG as a whole?

Chris

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:40 pm

zoltan wrote:I favour B as it seems ludicrous that a pike phalanx with its arse all higgledepigildee in some difficult ground should get a "depth" bonus, just the same as if it was in the open. The phalanx in difficult ground should be punished relative to the same phalanx in open terrain. That's how I would rule if asked.

Hooray, there will be sense in New Zealand. I don't hold out much hope for this country though. The situational factors are clear, at least 3 ranks not fragmented or severely disordered and 4th rank in open terrain unless fragmented. Though Pete and Nik choose to ignore them.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:22 pm

philqw78 wrote:I have to add that I would also say you were talking utter bollocks. I would then continue with the game accepting your sh*te ruling, and watch my lancers be unable to break off from the spear with 1 rank in severely disordering terrain or pike with three ranks in severely disordering terrain,

Page 106 - when determining break offs you only count front rank bases.

imanfasil · Post by **imanfasil** » Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:03 pm

I posted a question the other day ' Terrain and POAs' and all the opinions were that only the front rank counted for all POAs the other bases merely needed to exist as a 3rd and 4th rank of pike to get all the bonuses. Not that a consensus was reached in this thread, but you outspoken rule-knowing people need to post far and wide. If I had not been reading every post here I would have missed the other interpretation.

Have we heard from anyone in the US? I personally favor the Australian approach. There has to be some difference to a pike block in the open and 3/4s in a gully. (does my 4th rank have to be able to SEE my 1st rank to give the +1?) Otherwise you may as well round 3/4 up and say pike ignore all terrain.

Thanks,
James

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:22 am

imanfasil wrote:I posted a question the other day ' Terrain and POAs' and all the opinions were that only the front rank counted for all POAs the other bases merely needed to exist as a 3rd and 4th rank of pike to get all the bonuses. Not that a consensus was reached in this thread, but you outspoken rule-knowing people need to post far and wide. If I had not been reading every post here I would have missed the other interpretation.

Have we heard from anyone in the US? I personally favor the Australian approach. There has to be some difference to a pike block in the open and 3/4s in a gully. (does my 4th rank have to be able to SEE my 1st rank to give the +1?) Otherwise you may as well round 3/4 up and say pike ignore all terrain.

Thanks,
James

I didn't notice any Australians contributing to this thread - what is their approach that you favour?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:46 am

nikgaukroger wrote:Page 106 - when determining break offs you only count front rank bases.

Well at least you read and understood the rules there. But that was quite simple.

imanfasil · Post by **imanfasil** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:35 am

That all 4 bases had to be in the open to count the unit in the open for purposes of a 4th rank.

I understand that we are calculating POAs only for the front rank base, but surely it could be looked at as - do I have 3 ranks behind me that are all also pike and in the open? If so... +.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:57 am

imanfasil wrote:That all 4 bases had to be in the open to count the unit in the open for purposes of a 4th rank.

I understand that we are calculating POAs only for the front rank base, but surely it could be looked at as - do I have 3 ranks behind me that are all also pike and in the open? If so... +.

The table says "extra for 4th rank of pikemen in the open" or "Pikemen (at least three ranks)"

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:21 am

We're wasting a lot of time on a scenario which in 4 years of playing this game I've never seen - but I guess it could happen.

For me the 'Open Terrain' issue is very clear in the Glossary - Page 135. So if the front rank base of pikes is not in the open, but the 4th rank is - then the front rank doesn't get the additional POA.

If you accept that - then you should also accept that if the front rank is in the open then it gains a POA if there is a 4th rank of pike at impact - irrespective of whether the 4th rank is disordered or severely disordered.

I do agree that the wording of the POA for the 4th rank in melee is subtly different - but the original question was what happens at impact.

To argue that you think all bases of the pike must be in the open for all POAs to apply is fine - but that is not what the rules say.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:24 am

but you outspoken rule-knowing people need to post far and wide.

Not sure what you mean by that?

imanfasil · Post by **imanfasil** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:27 pm

petedalby wrote:
but you outspoken rule-knowing people need to post far and wide.
Not sure what you mean by that?

Everyone on the forums here have been very helpful and we are appreciative - so if sleep deprivation makes this next part come out wrong - apologies!

What I meant, was that it causes confusion (to me at least) when a rule is discussed in two parellel threads and the answers are different. I think my thread 'Terrain and POAs' actually started first and then the what does 'steady' mean dove-tailed into POAs. Luckily I plan on taking my tournament beatings in the US and so the answers I received were the applicable ones.

FYI, I asked the question about 4 rank pike becuase it would have happened in a game (last weekend?) if pursuing pike had rolled anything but a 1 on their VMD. My
'planned' flight almost managed to Cannae them into some bad ground. Sadly they held their ground and defeated us in order!

Thanks,
James

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:33 pm

One thing to bear in mind when interpreting the rules in this area is that a 4 deep pike block is unrealistically deep on the table. 8 bases represents around 2000 men, typically 16 ranks deep, therefore around 125 wide. So at realistic ground scale, all the fighting figures would be in the area covered by the front rank bases.

And I have always assumed that the default position is that POAs are determined by looking at the front rank troops, except in cases where it is specifically stated otherwise (e.g. fo depth bonuses).

So I'm with the Pete interpretation on this, not the Phil one.

Although as has been pointed out, when you read the rules closely there is room for doubt.

Have we never had an author interpretation on this?

bbotus · Post by **bbotus** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:41 pm

petedalby Posted: 08 Jan 2011 08:21 Post subject:
We're wasting a lot of time on a scenario which in 4 years of playing this game I've never seen - but I guess it could happen.
For me the 'Open Terrain' issue is very clear in the Glossary - Page 135.

Pete, thanks for the page 135 reference on 'Open Terrain'. That is what I needed to make the argument come together. Now it is clear that the POA is based on where the base in contact is located and not the bases behind.

imanfasil Posted: 08 Jan 2011 13:27 Post subject:
but you outspoken rule-knowing people need to post far and wide.
--------------------------------
petedalby wrote:
Not sure what you mean by that?

This thread has gone on for 3 pages with 2 opposing opinions, both understandable until you read page 135. Some threads don't have a definitive answer for us newer FoG players. I guess the game is too new to have gaming conventions post lists of rules clarifications. As you can see from the forum, the game has different interpretations in different parts of the world and the errata and FAQs have not cleared them all up as yet.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 4:54 pm

There are definitely still some things that could do with being put in FAQs/errata.

Ultimately I don't think it matters hugely. We're talking about quite rare situations here and no matter how many such situations are nailed down there are still going to be occurrences crop up where the rules are not definitive and judgement has to be used. In a tournament an interpretation can have important consequences (and that's what umpires are for, not just so that we can have people to criticise/mock, although obviously the latter is the most important part of thier function

). But some will go against you, some for you. And if you are a frequent tournament player, then over time you will inevitably tend to pick up the consensus opinions.

If you are not a tournament player, than don't worry about a few mistakes in applying the rules, it shouldn't spoil enjoyment of the game.

bbotus · Post by **bbotus** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:00 pm

ShrubMiK, very true. It's just nice to play the rules as written.

And, no matter how close our group reads the rules, we always get differing opinions just as in the forum. So, we designate 1 person each game night as the final arbitor. We then search the forum and the rules after the fact to see what we really should have done for next time.

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 7:37 pm

ShrubMiK wrote:One thing to bear in mind when interpreting the rules in this area is that a 4 deep pike block is unrealistically deep on the table. 8 bases represents around 2000 men, typically 16 ranks deep, therefore around 125 wide. So at realistic ground scale, all the fighting figures would be in the area covered by the front rank bases.

There does seem to be a (unhelpful) distinction written into the rules where in some cases bases ignore some things but count others. e.g. p132. one (rear) base only partially within disordering terrain taints the whole BG for CMTs yet for combat only those (front) bases affected suffer any penalties.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:21 pm

Have we never had an author interpretation on this?

We haven't - largely because it seems, IMO, to be unlikely to occur.

I can understand a pike BG having to pursue into difficult terrain - but not a pike BG defeating something in diffivult terrain and then pursuing out - seems extremely unlikely.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:28 pm

What I meant, was that it causes confusion (to me at least) when a rule is discussed in two parellel threads and the answers are different. I think my thread 'Terrain and POAs' actually started first and then the what does 'steady' mean dove-tailed into POAs. Luckily I plan on taking my tournament beatings in the US and so the answers I received were the applicable ones.

Fair point - but you'll find it's a regualr occurance unfortunately - but I think the answers were the same - at least from me.

FYI, I asked the question about 4 rank pike becuase it would have happened in a game (last weekend?) if pursuing pike had rolled anything but a 1 on their VMD. My 'planned' flight almost managed to Cannae them into some bad ground. Sadly they held their ground and defeated us in order!

Remembering of course that pursuers don't have to enter terrain that would severely disorder them - last bullet on Page 108, left hand side.