Slitherine

First I would like to say that the new layout is IMO much better for getting you into the game. Non of this DBMM style get two thirds of the way through the rules before you find anything really important.

Some things I noticed on my reading so far:

Sequence of play - it may be a good idea to mention the cohesion test for FRG BG's in the sequence of play.

Shock troops - Medium foot shock troops still don't have to test to charge if they are not in the open even if they are in terrain that doesn't restrict them.

Skirmishers in the impact phase - this mentions uneven terrain, there is no such thing anymore, I suspect this should read broken.

CMT to charge for missile foot - are there any non skirmish foot armed with firearms or sling? if so should these weapons be listed in this section? Also what about any foot armed with bow *?

ZOI - disrupted troops have to make a CMT to intercept but disrupted shock troops don't have to make a CMT to charge, is this intentional?

More later

Hammy

Hi all
I have started reading the new version. Here are some comments.

• p5: Key concept,point 11: using the same MU for both 25mm and 15mm will lead to 2 very different type of games. In particular, it will take longer to reach flanking positions in 25mm games. Is this deliberate?
  
  p6: quick terrain: a V shaped terrain could be more than 16MU between its ends without having any part more than 16MU across through the center. More generaly, are non convex shape allowed?
  
  p6: quick terrain: I understand that among the 8 selections, 2 terrains must be large (each counting as 2 selections) so that the choice is limited to 6 pieces (2 large, 4 normal). Is this correct?
  
  p8: impact phase: is it possible to have shock troop with missile in front rank (e.g. I think of Prussian warbands)? If so, how do they test when in charge reach?
  
  p8: impact phase: LI are compelled to test to stand in front of Elephants and Scythed chariot. This is denying them their historical role. (also applies on p11)
  
  p8: interbound phase: do you have to test again for generals lost? (I have not read yet the relevant chapter)
  
  p9: With the current wording, nothing forbid a BG to contact another enemy BG without declaring a charge, thus avoiding the impact phase and going straight to the melee phase. See in particular the last but one bullet "any physical contact initiate combat". The fact that the word "charge" is not used in that sentence could be used by hard gamers. Is this deliberate?
  
  p9: how are treated corner to corner contact? When a BG lines up with an opposing BG in a wider BL and break its direct opponent, how is treated the resulting corner to corner contact with the rest of the BL? The note on p10 about elements engaged in impact seems to imply that this is not a combat situation, yet there is a physical contact.
  
  p9: undrilled foot must pass a CMT to wheel within 6MU of enemy. Must they do it to wheel and charge? The current wording seems to imply no. Is it what is meant?
  
  p11: shock troops: warbands must charge light cavalry while they are not compelled to charge LI! their chances of reaching are even lower
  
  p11: shock troops: since most LI are armed with shooting weapon, the 2nd and 3rd bullet contradict each other (warband in front of LI need not charge since it's LI, but must do since they are shooters)
  
  p12: flank charges, 3rd bullet: please add shooters to avoid discussions
  
  p12: flank charges, 4th bullet: if the enemy is already disrupted, must it pass a test for being charged while fragmented?(i.e. is the drop of cohesion applied before or after the charged test?)
  
  p12: flank charges, last bullet: since melee can last several bounds, I fear that such non flanking flanking position will be create position very hard to solve for umpires when called for by a dishonest player after some time ("I claim it was a flank charge." "No it wasn't!" "Yes it was!"). For simplicity sake, I wish we could avoid such trouble.

That's all I have read for today.
Since the rule is meant for competition, I have tried to read it in the most twisted mind, looking for holes in the text in which hard gamers could breach the balance of the game. If such comments are too early in the writing process, please tell me so.

Best regards


Vincent

Hi Vincent

Thanks for the feed back very helpful

Re
Since the rule is meant for competition, I have tried to read it in the most twisted mind, looking for holes in the text in which hard gamers could breach the balance of the game. If such comments are too early in the writing process, please tell me so.

Its probably a little early for this process we are just getting round to that aspect now and your feedback will be better saved till we address these issues

Regards
JDM

p14: top interception diagram: a small boxed text seems to indicate that the presence of an enemy ZOI can prevent the execution of an interception. This is the only place where such a restriction is imposed on interceptions. Is it a leftover from a previous rule wording? If no, it should be explicitly written in the main text of the rule p13 and not left as a small isolated diagram's note.

p15: evading 3rd bullet: when 2 units are charging a single evader, I think that forcing the chargers to place their charge direction sticks before the enemy chooses which unit he evades could lead to absurd situations (in such a situation, the evader has 3 options: own rear, charger 1's direction, charger's 2 direction).

p15: evading 4th bullet: if charged by 2 units from 2 different directions, evaders cannot choose to split the angle. This is a simplification but it could lead to strange situations.

p15: evading 6th bullet: evaders cannot choose to head directly toward a gap (doing the minimum orientation to do it as flee moves would do in DBM). If I understand correctly, bursting through is not allowed if a gap exist and piling up in it is possible. 1st sub bullet, I would use "to get past the obstacle" rather than "to get through" to avoid confusions.

p18: Impact: 2nd bullet: I understand the simplicity looked for by this sentence (and I'm not sure it is really simpler than "all base in contact with enemy fight in impact phase"), but it means that high quality troops have an advantage since the opponent cannot use superior numbers in the impact phase to compensate negative POAs. I fear that this rule point will have strong play balance implications and will deny a clever player who managed to concentrate more troops on one point the advantage he could reasonnably claim.

p18: Impact: 6th bullet, 5th sub bullet: the "score to hit table" is lacking from the main rule. I found it only in the QRS. I think the sentence here should apply to the table (++ or more)

p20: flank charge POA: the table does not indicate that this is a net POA (the QRS and the text do)

p23: movement rates table: I suggest writing "Open or in column" in the 2nd column of the table. Otherwise the advantage of being in column will often be forgotten.
IMPORTANT: can a base exceed the indicated distance during a move?
This is critical for expansion and contractions (e.g. expanding by 2 base is more than 3MUs in 15mm, so could be denied to HF). I assume that wheels are measured along the outer arc, even in column, but this is not explicitly required and since expansion clearly allows extra movement...

p25: complex move table: expanding while advancing could be a complex move for drilled troops.

p26: shock troops under fire: advance a full move toward the shooters could necessitate a wheel, which requires a CMT for undrilled. If you failed the CMT for not moving (or choose not to test), do you have to pass a CMT to wheel and move undrilled foot toward the shooters?

p26: aligning with enemy: 1st bullet: this means that the troop charged may have to align itself during its player's bound if it placed itself near an obstacle to stop an enemy from contacting it in good conditions. I like this rule.

I am just coming back from a full week of holidays.
I used part of my free time to read completely the rules. Here are some additional comments.

p7: last sentence: "each battle line needs a general within command range of all its BG": This sentence is part of a tip, yet it is written in a very imperative mode. Is it compulsory? What happens if the requirement is not met?

p9: charges: can you declare conditionnal charges? Assume that a single line of Cav is facing a BG of knights supported by some LH. Can the knight declare a charge, with the LH joining in if the Cav evade? Note that at the start of the sequence, the LH need a CMT to be able to charge the Cav which is not necessary any more if the Cav are evading and presenting their rear.

p12: rear charges: I suggest to clarify that the conditions for the rear charge are assessed when the charging BGs begins its move (last but one bullet of p16). Otherwise evaders caught in rear would not qualify for being charged in rear.

p12: nothing prevent light artillery or war wagons from declaring charges! Is it intended or an oversight?

p13-14: ZOI: can you intercept an enemy if he starts its move outside the ZOI but crosses it during its move? If so, can you modify the diagram accordingly? N.B., in the evade example of p17, it means that the Cav can advance up to their ZOI limit to protect the LH evade. Another answer seems to indicate that this is not possible, although I fail to understand why.

p15-16: evade procedure: if the evaders turned during their move to avoid an obstacle, can the charger reorient their charge direction (the stick placed in the 3rd bullet/stage) to help them contacting the evaders?

p16: Assume a BG is charging 2 different enemy BGs, one of which is evading and the other is not. Is the VMD compulsory? It could lead to the chargers being unable to reach their target.

p22: with the current writing, a BG which charged, won the impact phase, broke its opponent, pursued and was outdistanced is allowed a move. Is this intended?
p22: does a broken enemy BG prevent 2nd moves?

p23: LF and LH have the same speed in difficult terrain. I think that caring for the horses should penalise the LH more. I suggest reducing the LH speed in difficult terrains to 3.

p23: Cav is quicker than HF in difficult terrain. This does not feel right to me.

p24: Complex move, last bullet: in the case of a BL attempting a CM, is the range measured from the general to the nearest or the farthest BG? See the note on p7 above: does it mean that a general can influence a BL CMT only if he can influence all the BGs involved?

p25: I think that expanding while advancing should be a complex move for drilled non skirmisher troops. I feel the transition from green to drilled troops to impossible for undrilled is too important.

p28: expanding in combat: assume a single BG is charging a big BL. Can you expand your BG after impact to fight against an overlapping enemy BG? This allows getting in melee with a unit without any impact phase.

p32: shooting is allowed after having made a double move (range may be under 6 if discovering an ambush)

p32: there is no penalty to shoot after having made a complex move. I would suggest at least a - POA or even completely preventing the shoot. E.g. a longbowmen placing his stake is probably to busy to effectively shoot at the enemy.

p33: adjudicating shooting, 5th bullet: I suggest to add "due to enemy shooting" to avoid a unit shooting before the CT due to friends routing in the impact phase is passed.

p33 and 35: I assume that the bullets must be applied in the order written. In particular, death rolls are made after the cohesion tests (this might be important for the 25% loss malus and the computation of the HP3B). I suggest using numbers instead of bullets to emphasize this.

p37 and p72: element fighting in overlap. If I understand the second bullet of p72 correctly (a BG cannot be overlapped on a side which is also frontally attacked), then the diagram of p37 is wrong and the overlapping G element should not be able to fight.

p39: pursuers: there is no definition of pursuers. In particular, is a BG which was outdistanced in a previous move still a pursuer? Can you elect to keep on pursuing even if outdistanced? If so, is there a distance after which pursuit must be abandonned?

p40: broken state: last line: needs a rewording (see this post).

p42: initial pursuit: I think that troops defending fortifications should not be compelled to pursue. Also, finding this text here, separated from the "further pursuits" rules of p39 is quite disturbing.

p44: attrition: losing a general is irrelevant for victory purpose. I suggest that 1 attrition point is accumulated for each general lost (2 for IC?). This would induce the players to be more careful with their generals, especially troop commanders who are not much more than super heroes boosting BGs in the current rule mechanisms.

p44: cohesion state: in our games with Olivier, we use a simple coloured marker system (yellow=disrupted, red=fragmented, green=broken)

p47: base sizes 15th troop type: disruptive units: what are these troops?

p47: base sizes: camp: I suggest to allow for bigger/different sizes to accomodate existing DBM bagages (e.g. 160mm x 80mm and/or 240mm x 40mm). The current rules makes my beautiful egyptian temple illegal.

p49: sacking camp: is the dice throw (5 or more to sack) subjected to quality reroll?

p53: dismouting within 6MUs of defences: could you define defences? Does these cover hedges and/or (placed/unplaced) portable obstacles? How is handled this formation change? It is not covered in the move section of the rules. The QRS says that dismounting to attack defences is a complex move. Can you dismount and charge? How can you dismount at 6MUs from the defences since this range is over charge reach of most troops?
CONTRADICTION: The table p53 says that LH dismount as LF, but the QRS says that dismounting is impossible for skirmishers (black box in the special complex moves table).
Is it possible to remount after having dismounted?

p53: In the biblical period, many charioteers had enough armour to warrant an armoured status IMO, especially when compared to the other foot troops available at this time.

p56: top of page: since sliding or pivoting are mutually exclusive, I suggest to reword the phrase using "the player can either slide..., either pivot" to emphasize this exclusive or.

p70: Cover: War Wagon do not provide cover!!!

p70: Open terrain: if an enemy is standing behind fortifications, is the move to reach them counted as "entirely in open terrain"? The current text can be read to say yes (fortifications impacts only POAs, not movement). In particular, must shock troops charge enemy behind fortifications?

That's all for today.

I have just noticed that quality re-rolls do not apply for the CMT to prevent shock troops charging. I can see a logic to this for undrilled troops but surely military order drilled knights would be less likely to charge than mercenary knights?

hammy wrote:I have just noticed that quality re-rolls do not apply for the CMT to prevent shock troops charging. I can see a logic to this for undrilled troops but surely military order drilled knights would be less likely to charge than mercenary knights?

They are less likely - becuase they are a higher Quality

nikgaukroger wrote:

hammy wrote:I have just noticed that quality re-rolls do not apply for the CMT to prevent shock troops charging. I can see a logic to this for undrilled troops but surely military order drilled knights would be less likely to charge than mercenary knights?

They are less likely - becuase they are a higher Quality

No they aren't that is the point.

There are no quality re-rolls for restraining shock troops so a BG of elite drilled knights is just as likely to fail this test as a BG of average drilled knights.

hammy wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

hammy wrote:I have just noticed that quality re-rolls do not apply for the CMT to prevent shock troops charging. I can see a logic to this for undrilled troops but surely military order drilled knights would be less likely to charge than mercenary knights?

They are less likely - becuase they are a higher Quality

No they aren't that is the point.

There are no quality re-rolls for restraining shock troops so a BG of elite drilled knights is just as likely to fail this test as a BG of average drilled knights.

Because they are more confident and aggressive than the condottieri.

rbodleyscott wrote:
Because they are more confident and aggressive than the condottieri.

I am sure from what little I have read about the crusades that the military orders did a very good job of not haring off against pesky horse archers. My understanding is that they were much more controlable than lesser knights.

Doh, missed the point of the question

However, in the armies that have Military Order knights - Crusaders basically - the other knights are undrilled which makes the orders nicely more controlable

I have no real issue with Military Order and other "regular" knights being as controlable as each other.

Sequence of play - it may be a good idea to mention the cohesion test for FRG BG's in the sequence of play.

Fair enough - we will do so.

Shock troops - Medium foot shock troops still don't have to test to charge if they are not in the open even if they are in terrain that doesn't restrict them.

Under consideration - should the move being completed in open terrain change to the move being entirely in terrain that does not caus disorder?

Skirmishers in the impact phase - this mentions uneven terrain, there is no such thing anymore, I suspect this should read broken.

Uneven is trhe first generic set of terrain : open, uneven, rough, difficult. I think it is fields and broken ground IIRC

CMT to charge for missile foot - are there any non skirmish foot armed with firearms or sling? if so should these weapons be listed in this section? Also what about any foot armed with bow *?

BW* would count as missile armed. If we find sling or firearms troops oft his type we should add it. I think we are stopping before any mass arquebusiers - so for example my favoutire Ikko-Ikki would be out of period (but would have 4 to a base firearms). Slings I am not sure? Aztecs? We'll keep it in mind.

ZOI - disrupted troops have to make a CMT to intercept but disrupted shock troops don't have to make a CMT to charge, is this intentional?

Yes. We are viewing the DISR to shock troops as a shake up that is likely to make them charge and do something out of control, but it shoudl be less easy to do something under control. If you see what i mean.

Si

Hi vincent,

Back after the christmas break and a bug....

p5: Key concept,point 11: using the same MU for both 25mm and 15mm will lead to 2 very different type of games. In particular, it will take longer to reach flanking positions in 25mm games. Is this deliberate?

It is. We are not wedded to it but we felt it being a different game was a good think. 2 for the price of 1. As long as both games work well. The fundamentals are the same.

p6: quick terrain: a V shaped terrain could be more than 16MU between its ends without having any part more than 16MU across through the center. More generaly, are non convex shape allowed?

Agreed. We are trying to avoid being to legal in style. We could say - fits entirely in a square 16MU each side instead. And similarly mest be greater than a 4MU square.

p6: quick terrain: I understand that among the 8 selections, 2 terrains must be large (each counting as 2 selections) so that the choice is limited to 6 pieces (2 large, 4 normal). Is this correct?

New improved quick terrain in latest edition. Keep using the full version in tests please. AFter all you are pros already.

p8: impact phase: is it possible to have shock troop with missile in front rank (e.g. I think of Prussian warbands)? If so, how do they test when in charge reach?

Ah yes. Samurai are liekly to be Impact Foot with Bw. They test as shock troops as they are still these. We may need to clarify this.

p8: impact phase: LI are compelled to test to stand in front of Elephants and Scythed chariot. This is denying them their historical role. (also applies on p11)

Interesting one. We will discuss.

p8: interbound phase: do you have to test again for generals lost? (I have not read yet the relevant chapter)

Not sure I understand the question but the answer is likely to be....you test for a lost general just the once at the end of the phase in which he dies. If he dies in the interbound test at the end of the interbound.

p9: With the current wording, nothing forbid a BG to contact another enemy BG without declaring a charge, thus avoiding the impact phase and going straight to the melee phase. See in particular the last but one bullet "any physical contact initiate combat". The fact that the word "charge" is not used in that sentence could be used by hard gamers. Is this deliberate?

No it isn't. Only 2 ways to contact - charge or join as an overlap in movement phase. New rules say:

 Battle groups can move into contact with enemy in the movement phase, but only if they are joining an existing melee as an overlap only. This is the only situation in which war wagons can move into contact with enemy.

p9: how are treated corner to corner contact? When a BG lines up with an opposing BG in a wider BL and break its direct opponent, how is treated the resulting corner to corner contact with the rest of the BL? The note on p10 about elements engaged in impact seems to imply that this is not a combat situation, yet there is a physical contact.

Corner to corner contacts fight as overlaps in the melee phase if there is a "real" fight on either side they will join in. If not they do nothing at present. A corner to corner impact at present qualifies a contact for charge and tropps will conform thereafter.

p9: undrilled foot must pass a CMT to wheel within 6MU of enemy. Must they do it to wheel and charge? The current wording seems to imply no. Is it what is meant?

Yes that's intentional to maximise chances of tropops getting in and avouding unrealistic technical stand-offs.

p11: shock troops: warbands must charge light cavalry while they are not compelled to charge LI! their chances of reaching are even lower

I think you will find they only have to test if facing foot troops unless I am missing something.

p11: shock troops: since most LI are armed with shooting weapon, the 2nd and 3rd bullet contradict each other (warband in front of LI need not charge since it's LI, but must do since they are shooters)

Not contradicotry. The 3rd one basically means you only charge LI if they cause you enough irritation. Intentional.

p12: flank charges, 3rd bullet: please add shooters to avoid discussions

p12: flank charges, 4th bullet: if the enemy is already disrupted, must it pass a test for being charged while fragmented?(i.e. is the drop of cohesion applied before or after the charged test?)

No it is a result of the impact. We will clarify.

p12: flank charges, last bullet: since melee can last several bounds, I fear that such non flanking flanking position will be create position very hard to solve for umpires when called for by a dishonest player after some time ("I claim it was a flank charge." "No it wasn't!" "Yes it was!"). For simplicity sake, I wish we could avoid such trouble.

Not sure I understand this one Vincent. We have tried to avoid any memory effects and want to do so. In this case there is no legacy benefit of charging in the flank. There is just an "at the time" effect for fighting in 2 directions. So the umpire would only need to decide if th elatter is true given the figures as they are at the time unless I am mistaken. Maybe I have missed soemthing cunning?

Si

p14: top interception diagram: a small boxed text seems to indicate that the presence of an enemy ZOI can prevent the execution of an interception. This is the only place where such a restriction is imposed on interceptions. Is it a leftover from a previous rule wording? If no, it should be explicitly written in the main text of the rule p13 and not left as a small isolated diagram's note.

left over to be replaced by new diag soon

p15: evading 3rd bullet: when 2 units are charging a single evader, I think that forcing the chargers to place their charge direction sticks before the enemy chooses which unit he evades could lead to absurd situations (in such a situation, the evader has 3 options: own rear, charger 1's direction, charger's 2 direction).

One to acid test with examples. It certainly gives options but not many good ones from my experience so far. One option may be to make it evade from the quickest of the chargers (or if equalt that chosen by the charger) ot rear? Thoughts?

p15: evading 4th bullet: if charged by 2 units from 2 different directions, evaders cannot choose to split the angle. This is a simplification but it could lead to strange situations.

But not as strange as tow men arguing with a protractor perhaps....flees/evades are by far the hardest bit to express IMHO. Lots of diags on their way.

p15: evading 6th bullet: evaders cannot choose to head directly toward a gap (doing the minimum orientation to do it as flee moves would do in DBM). If I understand correctly, bursting through is not allowed if a gap exist and piling up in it is possible. 1st sub bullet, I would use "to get past the obstacle" rather than "to get through" to avoid confusions.

OK

p18: Impact: 2nd bullet: I understand the simplicity looked for by this sentence (and I'm not sure it is really simpler than "all base in contact with enemy fight in impact phase"), but it means that high quality troops have an advantage since the opponent cannot use superior numbers in the impact phase to compensate negative POAs. I fear that this rule point will have strong play balance implications and will deny a clever player who managed to concentrate more troops on one point the advantage he could reasonnably claim.

One of the most important dynamics is the interplay between impact and melee phases. Numbers counta great deal in the melee phase. The above mechanism gives a single shot for high quality troops on a narrow front to break through or get swamped. Seems very realistic in play as far as we can tell. One to try out a fair bit.

p18: Impact: 6th bullet, 5th sub bullet: the "score to hit table" is lacking from the main rule. I found it only in the QRS. I think the sentence here should apply to the table (++ or more)

Now inserted in the main rules.

p20: flank charge POA: the table does not indicate that this is a net POA (the QRS and the text do)

OK

p23: movement rates table: I suggest writing "Open or in column" in the 2nd column of the table. Otherwise the advantage of being in column will often be forgotten.

That would be a rule change. You get the speed in column but still suffer disorder as your troop type.

I

MPORTANT: can a base exceed the indicated distance during a move?
This is critical for expansion and contractions (e.g. expanding by 2 base is more than 3MUs in 15mm, so could be denied to HF). I assume that wheels are measured along the outer arc, even in column, but this is not explicitly required and since expansion clearly allows extra movement...

Axactly and yes. Front rank gets measured and an expanding base may well exceed its move distance.

p25: complex move table: expanding while advancing could be a complex move for drilled troops.

will consider that

p26: shock troops under fire: advance a full move toward the shooters could necessitate a wheel, which requires a CMT for undrilled. If you failed the CMT for not moving (or choose not to test), do you have to pass a CMT to wheel and move undrilled foot toward the shooters?

A good one we need to fix.

p26: aligning with enemy: 1st bullet: this means that the troop charged may have to align itself during its player's bound if it placed itself near an obstacle to stop an enemy from contacting it in good conditions. I like this rule.

Indeed. The idea is to gradaully pull the bases into the fight an avoid fancy clinging on to straw with fingernails - come out and die like a man!

Si

I am just coming back from a full week of holidays.
I used part of my free time to read completely the rules. Here are some additional comments.

Now that's the kind of holiday maker we like !!! Thanks for all the comments Vincent. Very helpful. Thoughts below including explanation of the logic so far in places. Si

p7: last sentence: "each battle line needs a general within command range of all its BG": This sentence is part of a tip, yet it is written in a very imperative mode. Is it compulsory? What happens if the requirement is not met?

BGs outside this radius cannot be part of the battleline move anyway - so the battle line size is dependent on generals grade and position. ICs can manage 12" in both directions.

p9: charges: can you declare conditionnal charges? Assume that a single line of Cav is facing a BG of knights supported by some LH. Can the knight declare a charge, with the LH joining in if the Cav evade? Note that at the start of the sequence, the LH need a CMT to be able to charge the Cav which is not necessary any more if the Cav are evading and presenting their rear.

No. I have several time charged cav and LH together hoping to force the opponent to stand due to the risk of the LH catching them. Seemed rather historical to me. It has always been dangerous to run away when there are fast pursuers around.

p12: rear charges: I suggest to clarify that the conditions for the rear charge are assessed when the charging BGs begins its move (last but one bullet of p16). Otherwise evaders caught in rear would not qualify for being charged in rear.

Now removed. Flank and rear are the same which solves the problem. The likely benefit of a rear charge is that you will usually get more bases into contact and therefore do more molesting!

p12: nothing prevent light artillery or war wagons from declaring charges! Is it intended or an oversight?

There is now.

p13-14: ZOI: can you intercept an enemy if he starts its move outside the ZOI but crosses it during its move? If so, can you modify the diagram accordingly? N.B., in the evade example of p17, it means that the Cav can advance up to their ZOI limit to protect the LH evade. Another answer seems to indicate that this is not possible, although I fail to understand why.

Improved now. You can intercept if you ZOI is crossed.

p15-16: evade procedure: if the evaders turned during their move to avoid an obstacle, can the charger reorient their charge direction (the stick placed in the 3rd bullet/stage) to help them contacting the evaders?

IIRC the chargers can alter their line of charge in an attempt to contact the evading BG.

p16: Assume a BG is charging 2 different enemy BGs, one of which is evading and the other is not. Is the VMD compulsory? It could lead to the chargers being unable to reach their target.

Yes it is and you might bottle out. I can see it seems a little odd but I am not sure it is worth and exception. Equally you might get carried away and hit something you otherwise would have missed.

p22: with the current writing, a BG which charged, won the impact phase, broke its opponent, pursued and was outdistanced is allowed a move. Is this intended?

Yes. Jolly well done them. They deserve some reward.

p22: does a broken enemy BG prevent 2nd moves?

yes. therefore worth wiping them out if they are in a place you want to get past. broken units do get away quickly as you get an initial rout and then an interbound move. This also is a deliberate mechanism to avoid them clogging up the game and is consistent with the phases of battle concept.

p23: LF and LH have the same speed in difficult terrain. I think that caring for the horses should penalise the LH more. I suggest reducing the LH speed in difficult terrains to 3.

p23: Cav is quicker than HF in difficult terrain. This does not feel right to me.

We will take a look at these. You might be right on that.

p24: Complex move, last bullet: in the case of a BL attempting a CM, is the range measured from the general to the nearest or the farthest BG? See the note on p7 above: does it mean that a general can influence a BL CMT only if he can influence all the BGs involved?

All BGs must be inside range of the generals command radius to be a BL at all. Yes therefore.

p25: I think that expanding while advancing should be a complex move for drilled non skirmisher troops. I feel the transition from green to drilled troops to impossible for undrilled is too important.

Ok worth a look

p28: expanding in combat: assume a single BG is charging a big BL. Can you expand your BG after impact to fight against an overlapping enemy BG? This allows getting in melee with a unit without any impact phase.

Yes. In practice you will get murdered trying anything clever to exploit this although in principle you can try. Clealy if your troops prefer melee then narrow impact and expansion may be better but the lack of dice will tend to get you. If you strart really narrow (column) and expand the enemy will have 8 dice to your 4 - so even if you are at a ++ in the melee as a result it is still only evens on average and in fact you are worse off overall as they can get up to 8 hits on one BG an you can get all of 4 spread across 2 BGs. So you can lose very badly and they cannot. Try it out and see how easy/hard it is to do with any effect.

p32: shooting is allowed after having made a double move (range may be under 6 if discovering an ambush)

True

p32: there is no penalty to shoot after having made a complex move. I would suggest at least a - POA or even completely preventing the shoot. E.g. a longbowmen placing his stake is probably to busy to effectively shoot at the enemy.

A - is a very large penatly in practice and there seems no need from testing to date. It also requires memory and leads to arguments -" you did a compelx move", " no I didn't", "yes you did" etc.

p33: adjudicating shooting, 5th bullet: I suggest to add "due to enemy shooting" to avoid a unit shooting before the CT due to friends routing in the impact phase is passed.

Not sure I understand. If any troops rout in the imapct phase the tests for them will have occured already? Am i missing soemthing?

p33 and 35: I assume that the bullets must be applied in the order written. In particular, death rolls are made after the cohesion tests (this might be important for the 25% loss malus and the computation of the HP3B). I suggest using numbers instead of bullets to emphasize this.

That is correct

p37 and p72: element fighting in overlap. If I understand the second bullet of p72 correctly (a BG cannot be overlapped on a side which is also frontally attacked), then the diagram of p37 is wrong and the overlapping G element should not be able to fight.

Diagram being updated.

p39: pursuers: there is no definition of pursuers. In particular, is a BG which was outdistanced in a previous move still a pursuer? Can you elect to keep on pursuing even if outdistanced? If so, is there a distance after which pursuit must be abandonned?

Pursuers are those in contact with enemy that is routing. That's it. We perhaps need to add to the glossary. If you break off and want to wipe them out you can charge them again if in range.

p40: broken state: last line: needs a rewording (see this post).

p42: initial pursuit: I think that troops defending fortifications should not be compelled to pursue. Also, finding this text here, separated from the "further pursuits" rules of p39 is quite disturbing.

All movement mechanisms are now in one place so theya re together. Agreed on not pursuing from foritifications - to be honest I don't thin anyone has got round to trying FFs out yet.

p44: attrition: losing a general is irrelevant for victory purpose. I suggest that 1 attrition point is accumulated for each general lost (2 for IC?). This would induce the players to be more careful with their generals, especially troop commanders who are not much more than super heroes boosting BGs in the current rule mechanisms.

We have bounced that one around a few times and thus far felt it was too punitive. At present it feels a decent balance whether to use generals in the front rank or not. If you suffer AP as well as loss of CT+s and a CT forced test it seems to much that one would not risk generals at all as in DBM. This is very un-historical so we are trying to make it on balance attractive but risky to throw generals into combat.

p44: cohesion state: in our games with Olivier, we use a simple coloured marker system (yellow=disrupted, red=fragmented, green=broken)

There are different preferences and I suspect we will be suggesting or even providing counters. I have just made some although I must say I have found counters so far more confusing than the figures. I keep moving BGs without moving counters and then wondering which BG they go with. perhaps I am just odd. The ideal is when you rout and the opponent runs over your old DISR marking thereby getting unfairly disrupted by accident!!

p47: base sizes 15th troop type: disruptive units: what are these troops?

Beats me? Doesn't exist in my latest set so must be fixed.

p47: base sizes: camp: I suggest to allow for bigger/different sizes to accomodate existing DBM bagages (e.g. 160mm x 80mm and/or 240mm x 40mm). The current rules makes my beautiful egyptian temple illegal.

Ok by me

p49: sacking camp: is the dice throw (5 or more to sack) subjected to quality reroll?

No re-roll at present, but perhaps should be.

p53: dismouting within 6MUs of defences: could you define defences? Does these cover hedges and/or (placed/unplaced) portable obstacles? How is handled this formation change? It is not covered in the move section of the rules. The QRS says that dismounting to attack defences is a complex move. Can you dismount and charge? How can you dismount at 6MUs from the defences since this range is over charge reach of most troops?
CONTRADICTION: The table p53 says that LH dismount as LF, but the QRS says that dismounting is impossible for skirmishers (black box in the special complex moves table).
Is it possible to remount after having dismounted?

One we will need to kick around. Points well made and noted thanks.

p53: In the biblical period, many charioteers had enough armour to warrant an armoured status IMO, especially when compared to the other foot troops available at this time.

We have thus far found it oddly useful to have no armour for chariots. In period the Hch/Lch POAs seem to work well. Out of period the lack of an armour level neturalises the armour of the later knights etc. This is the reason we have left then with no armour entry at all. Helps the cross period balance. Hope that makes sense. In period most of the armour etc, aligns with quality grades anyway as far as I can tell.

p56: top of page: since sliding or pivoting are mutually exclusive, I suggest to reword the phrase using "the player can either slide..., either pivot" to emphasize this exclusive or.

OK

p70: Cover: War Wagon do not provide cover!!!

They have a general + POA throughout so while not cover they are effectively a mobile FF. Different road to the same place.

p70: Open terrain: if an enemy is standing behind fortifications, is the move to reach them counted as "entirely in open terrain"? The current text can be read to say yes (fortifications impacts only POAs, not movement). In particular, must shock troops charge enemy behind fortifications?

FF in open terrain would be charged at present IMO. Whether we want that or not is another matter. Having said that nobody is forcing you to put your shock troops near them if you don't want to. I mean its hardly as if the fortifications have hunted the warband down and pinned them in a corner.

Cheers and thanks again.

Si

shall wrote:

vincent wrote:p70: Open terrain: if an enemy is standing behind fortifications, is the move to reach them counted as "entirely in open terrain"? The current text can be read to say yes (fortifications impacts only POAs, not movement). In particular, must shock troops charge enemy behind fortifications?

FF in open terrain would be charged at present IMO. Whether we want that or not is another matter. Having said that nobody is forcing you to put your shock troops near them if you don't want to. I mean its hardly as if the fortifications have hunted the warband down and pinned them in a corner.

One of our test game with Olivier involved 100YW French and English. The portable obstacles (stakes) count as fortifications and can be used to effectively hunt the French knights. If the archers stop their move at 6MUs, either the knight keep away and they are shot down at long range, either they advance and the archers place the stakes in the next bound, shoot at the knights and wait for the compulsory charge. This is the rationale behind the question: in such a situation, can the knights dismount to attack the defences or are they compelled to charge straight on into the obstacles? Similar situations could apply with war wagons.

Thanks for having taken the time to read and comment all the posts.
Some of the remarks were wrong, due to too quick reading.

shall wrote:

p6: quick terrain: a V shaped terrain could be more than 16MU between its ends without having any part more than 16MU across through the center. More generaly, are non convex shape allowed?

Agreed. We are trying to avoid being to legal in style. We could say - fits entirely in a square 16MU each side instead. And similarly mest be greater than a 4MU square.

New improved quick terrain in latest edition. Keep using the full version in tests please. AFter all you are pros already.

OK. I like the proposed rewording. Olivier and I are using the full version in our tests.

shall wrote:

p11: shock troops: since most LI are armed with shooting weapon, the 2nd and 3rd bullet contradict each other (warband in front of LI need not charge since it's LI, but must do since they are shooters)

Not contradicotry. The 3rd one basically means you only charge LI if they cause you enough irritation. Intentional.

OK. Reading again the text, I suggest to add "steady or disrupted" before the words "shock troops" to avoid discussions when fragmented shock troops are shot at frontally.

shall wrote:

p12: flank charges, last bullet: since melee can last several bounds, I fear that such non flanking flanking position will be create position very hard to solve for umpires when called for by a dishonest player after some time ("I claim it was a flank charge." "No it wasn't!" "Yes it was!"). For simplicity sake, I wish we could avoid such trouble.

Not sure I understand this one Vincent. We have tried to avoid any memory effects and want to do so. In this case there is no legacy benefit of charging in the flank. There is just an "at the time" effect for fighting in 2 directions. So the umpire would only need to decide if th elatter is true given the figures as they are at the time unless I am mistaken. Maybe I have missed soemthing cunning?

I may have missed the fact that flank charges have no lasting effects.
Reading again the comment, I don't understand myself what was the problem I had seen . It may have been due to insufficient knowledge of the rule at the time.

shall wrote:

p8: interbound phase: do you have to test again for generals lost? (I have not read yet the relevant chapter)

Not sure I understand the question but the answer is likely to be....you test for a lost general just the once at the end of the phase in which he dies. If he dies in the interbound test at the end of the interbound.

p11: shock troops: warbands must charge light cavalry while they are not compelled to charge LI! their chances of reaching are even lower

I think you will find they only have to test if facing foot troops unless I am missing something.

You can disregard these remarks which resulted from insuffficient reading.

shall wrote:

p15: evading 3rd bullet: when 2 units are charging a single evader, I think that forcing the chargers to place their charge direction sticks before the enemy chooses which unit he evades could lead to absurd situations (in such a situation, the evader has 3 options: own rear, charger 1's direction, charger's 2 direction).

One to acid test with examples. It certainly gives options but not many good ones from my experience so far. One option may be to make it evade from the quickest of the chargers (or if equalt that chosen by the charger) ot rear? Thoughts?

p15: evading 4th bullet: if charged by 2 units from 2 different directions, evaders cannot choose to split the angle. This is a simplification but it could lead to strange situations.

But not as strange as tow men arguing with a protractor perhaps....flees/evades are by far the hardest bit to express IMHO. Lots of diags on their way.

I understand what you mean about cutting the angle leading to worse situations. I will try to work out some examples. I think that finding a wording which does not leave unfair options to cunning players will be hard. My first impulse would be to consider the nearest charger (if equal, charger's choice) as the main charge threat.

shall wrote:

p18: Impact: 2nd bullet: I understand the simplicity looked for by this sentence (and I'm not sure it is really simpler than "all base in contact with enemy fight in impact phase"), but it means that high quality troops have an advantage since the opponent cannot use superior numbers in the impact phase to compensate negative POAs. I fear that this rule point will have strong play balance implications and will deny a clever player who managed to concentrate more troops on one point the advantage he could reasonnably claim.

One of the most important dynamics is the interplay between impact and melee phases. Numbers counta great deal in the melee phase. The above mechanism gives a single shot for high quality troops on a narrow front to break through or get swamped. Seems very realistic in play as far as we can tell. One to try out a fair bit.

Agreed. It takes a while to get used to it, but this may be indeed a fondamental building brick of AoW.

shall wrote:

p23: movement rates table: I suggest writing "Open or in column" in the 2nd column of the table. Otherwise the advantage of being in column will often be forgotten.

That would be a rule change. You get the speed in column but still suffer disorder as your troop type.

OK, I missed that.

shall wrote:

p25: complex move table: expanding while advancing could be a complex move for drilled troops.

will consider that

In our last game with Olivier, I used and abused of this capability with the pike BG (contract and advance in column on turn 1, advance and expand on the other side on turn 2 and do it again...). It allowed my infantry to move diagonaly very quickly, probably too easily. Some rear elements were doing almost triple speed in the process.

shall wrote:

p9: charges: can you declare conditionnal charges? Assume that a single line of Cav is facing a BG of knights supported by some LH. Can the knight declare a charge, with the LH joining in if the Cav evade? Note that at the start of the sequence, the LH need a CMT to be able to charge the Cav which is not necessary any more if the Cav are evading and presenting their rear.

No. I have several time charged cav and LH together hoping to force the opponent to stand due to the risk of the LH catching them. Seemed rather historical to me. It has always been dangerous to run away when there are fast pursuers around.

The problem is that the LH needs a CMT to be able to charge. If they pass it, the Cav can then elect to stand, hoping that their better condition against the LH will compensate the disadvantage against the knights. You could easily end up with the knight winning, the LH losing and the cavalry not losing due to a higher difference against the LH. If the LH fail the CMT, then the Cav can safely evade, getting in a position where the CMT is not required anymore. IMO, the stress of the situation is more on the LH player than on the Cav one, and that does not feel right to me.
Have you consider allowing "opportunity charges" (i.e. allowing charges when the opponent offers you a good occasion, such as a rear charge opportunity)?

shall wrote:

p32: there is no penalty to shoot after having made a complex move. I would suggest at least a - POA or even completely preventing the shoot. E.g. a longbowmen placing his stake is probably to busy to effectively shoot at the enemy.

A - is a very large penatly in practice and there seems no need from testing to date. It also requires memory and leads to arguments -" you did a compelx move", " no I didn't", "yes you did" etc.

OK, I understand the rationale: another application of the KISS (Keep It Stupidly Simple) principle.

shall wrote:

p33: adjudicating shooting, 5th bullet: I suggest to add "due to enemy shooting" to avoid a unit shooting before the CT due to friends routing in the impact phase is passed.

Not sure I understand. If any troops rout in the imapct phase the tests for them will have occured already? Am i missing something?

Players tend to forget the sequence of play in the heat of the game. Adding the proposed text just emphasises that shooting is simultaneous and that all shot need to be done before their effects are resolved.

shall wrote:

p40: broken state: last line: needs a rewording (see this post).

p42: initial pursuit: I think that troops defending fortifications should not be compelled to pursue. Also, finding this text here, separated from the "further pursuits" rules of p39 is quite disturbing.

All movement mechanisms are now in one place so theya re together. Agreed on not pursuing from foritifications - to be honest I don't thin anyone has got round to trying FFs out yet.

We tried stakes with Olivier. In the same game, I also discovered that a field surrounded by hedges can be turned into a pretty forteress for almost no cost in budget. These are not exactly FFs but they have the same effects in game terms.

shall wrote:

p44: attrition: losing a general is irrelevant for victory purpose. I suggest that 1 attrition point is accumulated for each general lost (2 for IC?). This would induce the players to be more careful with their generals, especially troop commanders who are not much more than super heroes boosting BGs in the current rule mechanisms.

We have bounced that one around a few times and thus far felt it was too punitive. At present it feels a decent balance whether to use generals in the front rank or not. If you suffer AP as well as loss of CT+s and a CT forced test it seems to much that one would not risk generals at all as in DBM. This is very un-historical so we are trying to make it on balance attractive but risky to throw generals into combat.

After 4 games played, I feel that the risk is very low when compared to the advantages gained. TC are so cheap that it's really worth using them in that role. IMO, it smacks a bit too much of the Warhammer heroes.

shall wrote:

p44: cohesion state: in our games with Olivier, we use a simple coloured marker system (yellow=disrupted, red=fragmented, green=broken)

There are different preferences and I suspect we will be suggesting or even providing counters. I have just made some although I must say I have found counters so far more confusing than the figures. I keep moving BGs without moving counters and then wondering which BG they go with. perhaps I am just odd. The ideal is when you rout and the opponent runs over your old DISR marking thereby getting unfairly disrupted by accident!!

I am well used to markers and always find them useful and efficient for clarity, especially in competitions.

vincent wrote:

shall wrote:

vincent wrote:p70: Open terrain: if an enemy is standing behind fortifications, is the move to reach them counted as "entirely in open terrain"? The current text can be read to say yes (fortifications impacts only POAs, not movement). In particular, must shock troops charge enemy behind fortifications?

FF in open terrain would be charged at present IMO. Whether we want that or not is another matter. Having said that nobody is forcing you to put your shock troops near them if you don't want to. I mean its hardly as if the fortifications have hunted the warband down and pinned them in a corner.

One of our test game with Olivier involved 100YW French and English. The portable obstacles (stakes) count as fortifications and can be used to effectively hunt the French knights. If the archers stop their move at 6MUs, either the knight keep away and they are shot down at long range, either they advance and the archers place the stakes in the next bound, shoot at the knights and wait for the compulsory charge. This is the rationale behind the question: in such a situation, can the knights dismount to attack the defences or are they compelled to charge straight on into the obstacles? Similar situations could apply with war wagons.

The intention is, and has always been, that attacking/defending fortifications does not count as "in open terrain". Hence the shock troops are not forced to test not to charge troops defending fortifications.

Unfortunately, I agree that the present wording on the glossary entry does not make this clear. (Another example of where trying to be specific about wording to avoid ambiguity actually causes more ambiguities/unintended meanings). It will be clarified.