Questions Reading New Version

[bddbrown]

I jotted down some questions as I started to read through the rules. These are not complete and some are a little picky and some are repeats of previous questions.

Terrain
??? P.24 ???The defender must take his 2 compulsory pieces and can take these of any size at no additional cost.??? ??“ Does this mean I can take a 1mm by 1mm compulsory terrain piece?
??? P.24 The adjustment dice table specifies values of 1-6 when values of 0-7 are possible.
??? No mention of whether you can slide or pivot terrain off-table.
??? P.25-26 The table makes reference to LI which is not a defined troop type. I presume it means LF.

Scouting
??? P.26 No clarification of how scouting is conducted. Who declares first, is it simultaneous and if so how is this done?

Sequence of Play
??? P.31 ???Generals of both sides attempt to rally battle groups whose cohesion level did not drop in the preceding bound??? ??“ what is meant by preceding bound the current one or the one preceding the current one?

The Impact Phase
??? P.32 There seems to be a duplicate of the bullet point ???A charging battle group??¦???.
??? P.34 ???Shock Troops in the Impact Phase??? bullet 2 ??“ why would shock foot need a CMT to not charge light horse when they don??™t need to do so for light foot?
??? P.34 ???Shock Troops in the Impact Phase??? bullet 3 ??“ At first read I wanted to simplify this sentence ??“ but having worked through the options I suspect it needs to stand as it is. ??? P.34 ???Shock Troops in the Impact Phase??? bullet 5 ??“ Why not? Makes sense that higher quality troop types would be more disciplined?
??? Initial impression of shock troops is ok. It definitely adds more dice rolls which slows down the game and is a bad thing. It adds complexity for little gain. We??™ll see how it works in practise.

Zone Of Interception
??? P.36 Seems like intercepting BGs can now perform an intercept even if they are within a ZOI of another enemy unit. Is this change deliberate? The first diagram on page 37 seems to indicate this is a mistake ??“ ???Note that if a supporting Illyrian BG had been present on this side the cataphracts may not have been able to charge as they may have passed through an enemy ZOI???.

[shall]

Thanks for the questions. Only thoughts on those not already covered previously.

Terrain

??? P.24 ???The defender must take his 2 compulsory pieces and can take these of any size at no additional cost.??? ??“ Does this mean I can take a 1mm by 1mm compulsory terrain piece?

No it means legal size - so it must at least cover a 4" sq and be under 16" across that's all.

??? P.24 The adjustment dice table specifies values of 1-6 when values of 0-7 are possible.
??? No mention of whether you can slide or pivot terrain off-table.

Tiny typo but material - we lost a + of the end of 6. It should read 6+ = remove.

??? P.25-26 The table makes reference to LI which is not a defined troop type. I presume it means LF.

Correct

Scouting
??? P.26 No clarification of how scouting is conducted. Who declares first, is it simultaneous and if so how is this done?

You no longer choose how many to declare. We are trying it in vs 2 with both sides just declaring the total and that's it (see sentence above the table). No ordering issues or need to deliberate therefore. Better or worse? Views welcome.

Sequence of Play
??? P.31 ???Generals of both sides attempt to rally battle groups whose cohesion level did not drop in the preceding bound??? ??“ what is meant by preceding bound the current one or the one preceding the current one?

We have now defined it as just the INTERBOUND and it sits between bounds. So the preceding bound is the single sequence of Impact-Melee that just preceded the relevant INTERBOUND.

The Impact Phase
??? P.32 There seems to be a duplicate of the bullet point ???A charging battle group??¦???.
??? P.34 ???Shock Troops in the Impact Phase??? bullet 2 ??“ why would shock foot need a CMT to not charge light horse when they don??™t need to do so for light foot?
??? P.34 ???Shock Troops in the Impact Phase??? bullet 3 ??“ At first read I wanted to simplify this sentence ??“ but having worked through the options I suspect it needs to stand as it is.
??? P.34 ???Shock Troops in the Impact Phase??? bullet 5 ??“ Why not? Makes sense that higher quality troop types would be more disciplined?
??? Initial impression of shock troops is ok. It definitely adds more dice rolls which slows down the game and is a bad thing. It adds complexity for little gain. We??™ll see how it works in practise.

We like charging so much we put it in twice ............ will fix.

Best to see how the shock troops work out in practice as its a fairly new concept (that seems well founded in historical evidence I am told). It would be great if you could manage a game with large numbers of shock troops and see what happens. Your points well noted and as a new area we'll be keeping a close eye on people's views about it thanks. More views please.

Zone Of Interception
??? P.36 Seems like intercepting BGs can now perform an intercept even if they are within a ZOI of another enemy unit. Is this change deliberate? The first diagram on page 37 seems to indicate this is a mistake ??“ ???Note that if a supporting Illyrian BG had been present on this side the cataphracts may not have been able to charge as they may have passed through an enemy ZOI???.

Yes this change is deliberate and came in simultaneously with allowing troops to charge through a restricted area and the two go together really. So if your troops are not good enough to enforce their restricted area they can do little about it. To allow this we needed to stop the cancellation of another ZOI.

Sorry about the inconsistency there. The diagrams are largely valid still and we checked through them but missed that note. If there is ever a dispute between text and a diagram use the text as this is at vs2 level. New diagrams are one of the next things on the job list.

[bddbrown]

Zone Of Interception
??? P.36 Seems like intercepting BGs can now perform an intercept even if they are within a ZOI of another enemy unit. Is this change deliberate? The first diagram on page 37 seems to indicate this is a mistake ??“ ???Note that if a supporting Illyrian BG had been present on this side the cataphracts may not have been able to charge as they may have passed through an enemy ZOI???.

Yes this change is deliberate and came in simultaneously with allowing troops to charge through a restricted area and the two go together really. So if your troops are not good enough to enforce their restricted area they can do little about it. To allow this we needed to stop the cancellation of another ZOI.

Sorry about the inconsistency there. The diagrams are largely valid still and we checked through them but missed that note. If there is ever a dispute between text and a diagram use the text as this is at vs2 level. New diagrams are one of the next things on the job list.

Ok. I think I get what is allowed here. We are saying that if BG A declares a charge and it is in the ZOI of BG B then BG B can intercept. If BG B is in the ZOI of BG C then BG C can intercept BG B? And if BG C does not do that then fine, BG B can complete its charge. i.e. put up or shut up!

[shall]

Ok. I think I get what is allowed here. We are saying that if BG A declares a charge and it is in the ZOI of BG B then BG B can intercept. If BG B is in the ZOI of BG C then BG C can intercept BG B? And if BG C does not do that then fine, BG B can complete its charge. i.e. put up or shut up!

Exactly a put up or shut up mechanism. We have made it that you can intercept a charging unit but you cannot intercept an intercepting unit at present to keep it simple. Clearly the concept has a risk fo cascade effect running amok if it is not contained. See how that works out and let us know if you see any issues.

So our principle for now is that ZOI are there to stop chargers, if you have the bottle go ahead. It has already posed me a few nasty decisions......

Si

[sagji]

Some more questions.

It says you can't check as a BL for shock troups resisting charging, but can you check as a BL for skirmishers, or missile troups to charge?

When a 2nd BG is fighting as the rear rank does it count as bases in the front BG for purposes of 1HP3?


When a 2nd/3rd line with missile weapons shoots in IMPACT what POA's does it use.

Do artillery need a CMT to move - shooting rules say it does movement doesn't mention it.

How fast do generals move - movement rules say +3MU, elsewhere it says +2MU

What happens if a unit has a negative move - HF in terrain rolling -2MU on VRM?

[nikgaukroger]

Best to see how the shock troops work out in practice as its a fairly new concept (that seems well founded in historical evidence I am told).

Basically that is the case. For those coming from DBM it is a big change in the approach, however, I'm with those who think the DBM sponno model is about as historical as Vikings in winged helmets

My impression is that the Shock Troops model should add some interesting choices to the game and the possibility of pulling the enemy out of position with clever use of missile troops which again should be a good game mechanism if it works smoothly (and avoids the suicide element tactic of DBM which is no bad thing). I'm interested to see how people find it works out in practice.

BTW do I read it right that you test for Shock Troops to not charge in the Impact phase after you have declared all charges?

[rbodleyscott]

BTW do I read it right that you test for Shock Troops to not charge in the Impact phase after you have declared all charges?

Yes - so that you can't then declare that the rest of the line will charge if one BG refuses to halt.

This is an additional incentive to declare charges rather than attempt the CMT to halt.

It should minimise "Mexican standoffs"

[nikgaukroger]

Excellent. I initially assumed that this would be the case but just wanted to check I'd read it correctly now it is actually in the rules.

[shall]

It says you can't check as a BL for shock troups resisting charging, but can you check as a BL for skirmishers, or missile troups to charge?

All charges are declared and tested for by BG. I do think you are correct that we haven't said this quite right though and we will address it on our fix list.

When a 2nd/3rd line with missile weapons shoots in IMPACT what POA's does it use.

It adds dice to the front fighting unit using its POAs - so don't treat as seprate. Its rather a boost to the front ranks from the support. This is simplification on the old method we had and we are keen to knwo if it is considered enough.

Do artillery need a CMT to move - shooting rules say it does movement doesn't mention it.

Yes they need a CMT to move. I'll need to check that in the rules.

How fast do generals move - movement rules say +3MU, elsewhere it says +2MU

Thanks we changed it to 3MUs but must have missed some. + 3MU is the answer. Its enough to let Cataphracts generals and LH move together for istance.

What happens if a unit has a negative move - HF in terrain rolling -2MU on VRM?

It remains stationary - treat 0MU as the minimum. So yes HF in difficult terrain if they ever had reason/ability to evade would go 0MU and simply fall over where they were.

Si

[sagji]

When a 2nd/3rd line with missile weapons shoots in IMPACT what POA's does it use.

It adds dice to the front fighting unit using its POAs - so don't treat as seprate. Its rather a boost to the front ranks from the support. This is simplification on the old method we had and we are keen to knwo if it is considered enough.

It just seems odd in extreme cases
8 HF Heavy Armour SSw charging 8 HS Def Sp + 4 LF Bow
Here the Bow add 4D@+, but shooting would be 2D@--
8 Cv unprotected Lance charging 8 MF Bow
Here the Bow add 4D@--, but shooting would be 2/4D@++

What happens if a unit has a negative move - HF in terrain rolling -2MU on VRM?

It remains stationary - treat 0MU as the minimum. So yes HF in difficult terrain if they ever had reason/ability to evade would go 0MU and simply fall over where they were.

Si

I think it mostly applies to rout moves - it seams very odd the HF in terrain don't move 1/3 of the time when routing.

[nikgaukroger]

It remains stationary - treat 0MU as the minimum. So yes HF in difficult terrain if they ever had reason/ability to evade would go 0MU and simply fall over where they were.

Si

Facing the enemy or would they be taken roughly from behind

[bddbrown]

Well they are evading so they would end up turning around. Maybe a simple clarification that an evade move must always be a minimum of 1" would suffice?

[shall]

shall wrote:


Quote:

When a 2nd/3rd line with missile weapons shoots in IMPACT what POA's does it use.



It adds dice to the front fighting unit using its POAs - so don't treat as seprate. Its rather a boost to the front ranks from the support. This is simplification on the old method we had and we are keen to knwo if it is considered enough.



It just seems odd in extreme cases
8 HF Heavy Armour SSw charging 8 HS Def Sp + 4 LF Bow
Here the Bow add 4D@+, but shooting would be 2D@--
8 Cv unprotected Lance charging 8 MF Bow
Here the Bow add 4D@--, but shooting would be 2/4D@++

Agreed so our question is whether it would be worth adding the sophisitaction of using different dice. It can be done to have them fight as if shooting for instance, but a bit more complex. Other people's views on this most welcome?

[shall]

shall wrote:


It remains stationary - treat 0MU as the minimum. So yes HF in difficult terrain if they ever had reason/ability to evade would go 0MU and simply fall over where they were.

Si



Facing the enemy or would they be taken roughly from behind

The latter but it isn't likely to happen Iw as merely throwing an extreme example out. Its fictional as I don't think any troops moving so slowly can ever evade.

As noted its more relevant for initial rout moves/ routs with enemy in contact. If your HF have to rout through a forest with thracians cuttingt he down from behind I guess one expects to rest in peace with the trees? As ever any views on this if felt to be unrealistic most welcome.

Si

[nikgaukroger]

Agreed so our question is whether it would be worth adding the sophisitaction of using different dice. It can be done to have them fight as if shooting for instance, but a bit more complex. Other people's views on this most welcome?

I would go for the simple option given a choice.

However, in my mind there is a question as to the effect of the supporting archers in some cases - mainly those represented by LF in support from a 3rd rank. These were often (usually?) relatively few men so is a full extra dice justified? If we look at Arrian for example he has a single rank of archers behind 8 of legionarii and the Strategikon has 2 behind a similar depth or 1 rank behind 4.

[rbodleyscott]

However, in my mind there is a question as to the effect of the supporting archers in some cases - mainly those represented by LF in support from a 3rd rank. These were often (usually?) relatively few men so is a full extra dice justified? If we look at Arrian for example he has a single rank of archers behind 8 of legionarii and the Strategikon has 2 behind a similar depth or 1 rank behind 4.

Because they are LF their dice are halved if the enemy are non-skirmishers. So LF archers supporting spears etc really only get 1 dice per 2 elements in most impact combats. So that is 1 extra dice for BGs of 4 spears + 2 LF and 6 spears + 3 LF, and 2 extra dice for BGs of 8 spears + 4 LF. It is a maximum of 20% extra hits.

[nikgaukroger]

Splendid - managed to miss that.

[sagji]

shall wrote:


It remains stationary - treat 0MU as the minimum. So yes HF in difficult terrain if they ever had reason/ability to evade would go 0MU and simply fall over where they were.

Si



Facing the enemy or would they be taken roughly from behind

The latter but it isn't likely to happen Iw as merely throwing an extreme example out. Its fictional as I don't think any troops moving so slowly can ever evade.

As noted its more relevant for initial rout moves/ routs with enemy in contact. If your HF have to rout through a forest with thracians cuttingt he down from behind I guess one expects to rest in peace with the trees? As ever any views on this if felt to be unrealistic most welcome.

Si

One simple solution is that routing troops suffer no movement penalty - the same as troops moving in column.

[sagji]

However, in my mind there is a question as to the effect of the supporting archers in some cases - mainly those represented by LF in support from a 3rd rank. These were often (usually?) relatively few men so is a full extra dice justified? If we look at Arrian for example he has a single rank of archers behind 8 of legionarii and the Strategikon has 2 behind a similar depth or 1 rank behind 4.

Because they are LF their dice are halved if the enemy are non-skirmishers. So LF archers supporting spears etc really only get 1 dice per 2 elements in most impact combats. So that is 1 extra dice for BGs of 4 spears + 2 LF and 6 spears + 3 LF, and 2 extra dice for BGs of 8 spears + 4 LF. It is a maximum of 20% extra hits.

Plus the army lists don't have to give full rear rank numbers - thus E. Byz could be 6-8 HF + 2 LF.

[shall]

One simple solution is that routing troops suffer no movement penalty - the same as troops moving in column.

That is indeed simple thanks. We'll keep that one in mind if there is a problem with it.

Is it more, or less, realistic to have a man in plate mail move full through a swamp when routing is I guess the question? He's certainly in a hurry....but then again he is rather bogged down. Views?