Slitherine

Omar wrote:What page does it refer to the front bases for 1HP3B? I cant find that in there.

Thanks for the replies. Working on my Principate Roman and Nikephorian Byzantine lists and trying to decide between the 4/6/8 bases with some groups.

In the Glossary, p135.

Marc

Thanks. How you guys remember all the little bits all over the rulebook is beyond me.

Omar wrote:Thanks. How you guys remember all the little bits all over the rulebook is beyond me.

Umpire a tournament or two. You'll find yourself having nightmares where you have been asked for a ruling on an evade and you cannot quite find the right page . . . .



Marc

You know you have done too much umpiring when you can remember that the restricted zone rules are on P74, the moving through friends rules are on P47 and the glossary starts on P 133 etc........

This came up towards the end of our last game.

I was in a situation where I had lancers who wanted to charge. However, the angle they were at meant 1 base of a 4 base BG (in a 2X2 formation) would contact one enemy BG, and the other one would move ahead to contact a seperate unit on the same line.

In this case, it was two units of dismounted men-at-arms, and the resulting combat tore my lancers apart. Spreading the attacks, which are already few, across two groups meant I did nothing to both.

Is there a way to prevent this (such as a wheel before a charge), or do I just have to back up and try a charge the following turn? I didnt see anything in the charge rules that would even suggest you can do anything but move straight ahead, but that doesnt mean there isnt.

Thanks!

The Impact Phase section includes information on wheeling in a charge - best check there again - and it is allowed as long as the wheel does not reduce the number of bases you have fighting in the Impact melee. So in this case it is likely that you could have wheeled into just one of the enemy BGs.

But the other one would still fight as an overlap (if they are in line), so you would still be at a disadvantage (although maybe not overlapped on both sides now depending on the size of the enemy BGs). If the enemy BGs are the same, the odds of winning the combat (or more importantly not losing) are the same whether you hit one or both BGs.
You don't want to go in unsupported with a 4 base BG vs a strong battle line !

lawrenceg wrote: IMO the authors' motivation for some of the terminology was to give the impression of novelty compared to previous games, and in some cases is spurious, e.g.

"Battlegroup" = "unit"
"Cohesion" = "morale"
"++" = "+2"

I see a sound rationale for most of the terminology.

A BG may represent multiple units working together, and players should not get hung up on units (nor on scale issues).

Cohesion and morale are substantively different concepts - morale is more related to quality. Which is why you take an automatic cohesion loss when charged in flank or rear by non-skirmishers - morale may remain high, but you fight less effectively. Shaken is a demoralization concept, disrupted and fragmented are disorganization concepts.

Broken, of course, is just broken.

+2 and +1 suggest a numerical scale in which there could be a +3, while ++ and fit as + are shorthand symbols for small advantage and large advantage.


There are some terms used simply to avoid using equivalent terms also used in earlier rules, but that seems OK and is wise if the tactical implications are different in order to perhaps reduce confusion.

===

My first exposure to the rules was when I purchased them, and I was immediately impressed with their clarity and comprehensiveness (and wished for a better index), particularly how sentences are usually written to admit only one natural interpretation. I think the trick is reading carefully but not reading anything into it that is not there (can be a challenge).

Cheers,

Mike