Slitherine

This post may be a little redundant as I suppose this may have been debated before, but nevertheless here it goes:

In my last match, my Kn charged a line made of 2 BG of legionnaires and a BG of elephants. One of the Bg of legionnaires broke, thus creating a hole in the line.

In the next turn, the Kn suffered several hits and lost one base. In this situation, with only one base in contact with each opponent’s BG and a gap in the middle, which base should be removed?



In order to avoid breaking contact, we opted for removing the base in contact with the legionnaires, shifting these to their left. The elephants and the legionnaires thus remained in contact with the Kn.

Was this decision correct, or should we have done it differently?

The knight facing the elephant has to be the one that is removed because the elephants inflicted more hits.

As it is impossible to replace the lost base without splitting the knight BG the knights actually end up only in contact with the legionaries and then they break off as the legionaries are steady.

There could be a slightly different answer to this post.

The Kn BG appars to have a general with it? Was he fighting in the front rank?

Not sure how that would change the answer

Not sure how that would change the answer

See page 116 - 6th bullet point?

petedalby wrote:

Not sure how that would change the answer

See page 116 - 6th bullet point?

I'm guessing it says " If the base that should be removed has been displaced by a commander fighting in the front rank, remove the displaced base instead of the commander."

I guess from which, you could argue that the commander's base can be used to maintain continuity - not sure about it though as they are just a marker really.

hammy wrote:As it is impossible to replace the lost base without splitting the knight BG the knights actually end up only in contact with the legionaries and then they break off as the legionaries are steady.

Good result for the knights then !

I guess from which, you could argue that the commander's base can be used to maintain continuity - not sure about it though as they are just a marker really.

That was my take on it - yes. If it wasn't intended, why would the rules have it as a specific bullet point?

petedalby wrote:

I guess from which, you could argue that the commander's base can be used to maintain continuity - not sure about it though as they are just a marker really.

That was my take on it - yes. If it wasn't intended, why would the rules have it as a specific bullet point?

To avoid the naughty trying to argue that they don't have to remove a base at all perhaps? Only Filthy, Rich and Catflap really know ...

FWIW on reflection I'd be tempted to go with it though as it maximises combat which, I think, is generally a good principle.

petedalby wrote:

I guess from which, you could argue that the commander's base can be used to maintain continuity - not sure about it though as they are just a marker really.

That was my take on it - yes. If it wasn't intended, why would the rules have it as a specific bullet point?

IMO it is there only to clarify that you lose a normal base, not the commander (triggering a cohesion test for loss of commander etc). The underlying principle is that the displaced troop base is really in the position where the commander's base is. It's only displaced because the authors chose to put commanders on big bases instead of representing them by only a flag or something.



If the elephants did the most hits then the base facing the elephants must be removed.

The removed front rank base must be replaced.

It is not possible to replace it except by shifting the rest of the BG to the right, breaking contact with the legionaries. Therefore that is what happens.

This is all stated clearly on page 116.

lawrenceg wrote:It is not possible to replace it except by shifting the rest of the BG to the right, breaking contact with the legionaries. Therefore that is what happens.

This is all stated clearly on page 116.

I was with you right until the "shifting the rest of the BG" bit.

When I get home I will check the rules but my memory tells me that if you cannot replace a lost base then you don't

Thanks guys,

Now imagine that the elepants and the legionnaires had made 3 hits each. Which Kn base should be removed, then?

lawrenceg wrote:

petedalby wrote:

I guess from which, you could argue that the commander's base can be used to maintain continuity - not sure about it though as they are just a marker really.

That was my take on it - yes. If it wasn't intended, why would the rules have it as a specific bullet point?

IMO it is there only to clarify that you lose a normal base, not the commander (triggering a cohesion test for loss of commander etc). The underlying principle is that the displaced troop base is really in the position where the commander's base is. It's only displaced because the authors chose to put commanders on big bases instead of representing them by only a flag or something.



If the elephants did the most hits then the base facing the elephants must be removed.

The removed front rank base must be replaced.

It is not possible to replace it except by shifting the rest of the BG to the right, breaking contact with the legionaries. Therefore that is what happens.

This is all stated clearly on page 116.

The rules contemplate physically placing the general in the front rank to show that he is fighting, providing re-roll bonuses, at risk, etc. Of course, nobody really does this as a practical matter. Instead we tilt the command stand or turn it to show that the general is fighting. (yeah, yeah, some pedant among you will insist that you do it "as written" - whatever).

Per the strict reading, the rules say you don't actually remove a general from the front rank when failing a death roll.

Even under the pedantic application, the no removing generals rule does not even trigger here, since the general is behind the overlap stand, and not the stand in frontal contact with the elephant.

No rulebook at hand, but assuming that it is opaque or silent on the split loser problem, I think Hammy's take holds better logic. If the Kn have lost at two ends, and suffered more hits from Elephants than legions, then they are "losing worse" on the Elephant side. All else being equal, it makes sense to show the casualties (i.e., lost stand) from that end. In turn, it does not make sense for the Kn to break from the legions - against whom they were losing, but not as badly - to reinforce the greater failure against the Elephants. Never mind the fact that other parts of the rules suggest that Kn will not engage Elephants without deliberate moves (e.g., no compulsory charges that might tag an elephant). So if the Kn have to make a Sophie's Choice here, it only makes sense for the result to skew towards fighting the legions.

spikemesq wrote: No rulebook at hand, but assuming that it is opaque or silent on the split loser problem, I think Hammy's take holds better logic. If the Kn have lost at two ends, and suffered more hits from Elephants than legions, then they are "losing worse" on the Elephant side. All else being equal, it makes sense to show the casualties (i.e., lost stand) from that end. In turn, it does not make sense for the Kn to break from the legions - against whom they were losing, but not as badly - to reinforce the greater failure against the Elephants. Never mind the fact that other parts of the rules suggest that Kn will not engage Elephants without deliberate moves (e.g., no compulsory charges that might tag an elephant). So if the Kn have to make a Sophie's Choice here, it only makes sense for the result to skew towards fighting the legions.

The rules are IMO not opaque and certainly not silent.

Essentially they maximise the suffering of the loser, rather than giving him a "get out of jail free" card.

This makes sense if you think of base loss as another mechanism of (whole) BG degradation, rather than the sudden death or rout of all the men in a small rectangular area. In real life the knights would be thinking "Those elephants are dangerous, we are in trouble" rather than "Those elephants just wiped out our mates, great, now they are no longer a threat".

In this case, having charged or been charged by the elephants, the knights continue to engage them but the morale and physical effects of the combat equate to a 25% reduction in the combat effectiveness of the battlegroup. They lose contact with the infantry, which looks a bit odd, but this is a side-effect of the level of resolution in the game.

pippohispano wrote:Thanks guys,

Now imagine that the elepants and the legionnaires had made 3 hits each. Which Kn base should be removed, then?

Easy - "If bases are of equal priority, the battle group's owner chooses which to remove".

P116 4th bullet.

lawrenceg wrote:

spikemesq wrote: No rulebook at hand, but assuming that it is opaque or silent on the split loser problem, I think Hammy's take holds better logic. If the Kn have lost at two ends, and suffered more hits from Elephants than legions, then they are "losing worse" on the Elephant side. All else being equal, it makes sense to show the casualties (i.e., lost stand) from that end. In turn, it does not make sense for the Kn to break from the legions - against whom they were losing, but not as badly - to reinforce the greater failure against the Elephants. Never mind the fact that other parts of the rules suggest that Kn will not engage Elephants without deliberate moves (e.g., no compulsory charges that might tag an elephant). So if the Kn have to make a Sophie's Choice here, it only makes sense for the result to skew towards fighting the legions.

The rules are IMO not opaque and certainly not silent.

Essentially they maximise the suffering of the loser, rather than giving him a "get out of jail free" card.

This makes sense if you think of base loss as another mechanism of (whole) BG degradation, rather than the sudden death or rout of all the men in a small rectangular area. In real life the knights would be thinking "Those elephants are dangerous, we are in trouble" rather than "Those elephants just wiped out our mates, great, now they are no longer a threat".

In this case, having charged or been charged by the elephants, the knights continue to engage them but the morale and physical effects of the combat equate to a 25% reduction in the combat effectiveness of the battlegroup. They lose contact with the infantry, which looks a bit odd, but this is a side-effect of the level of resolution in the game.

This is my understanding as well. In the Legion's next Maneuver phase, they may choose to shift back into contact or move away.

I suppose it comes down to the spirit of the writer intentions on this one. I personally agree that the elephants cause the most casualties and that is where the loss occurs, the knights stay in contact with the legions as I don't believe you can shift off an opponent you are in melee with.
Depending on whose turn it was when the knight died, the legions and elephants might have had to conform to the knights thus solving the whole nasty issue. Either way the knights will be taking a CT test with the - for loss to elephants so not looking too good for them.

deadtorius wrote:Either way the knights will be taking a CT test with the - for loss to elephants so not looking too good for them.

It was a bloodbath. By the end of the next turn, you couldn't see the knigths any more: they're gone!

deadtorius wrote:I suppose it comes down to the spirit of the writer intentions on this one. I personally agree that the elephants cause the most casualties and that is where the loss occurs, the knights stay in contact with the legions as I don't believe you can shift off an opponent you are in melee with.

According to page 116 you can shift off an opponent if it is impossible to fill a gap in the middle of your line without doing so.



Actually a strict application of page 116 results in the base facing the elephant being removed, then one of the middle two bases (that were in overlap) being put in its place, leaving a gap in the BG.

This section could do with a rewrite in 2.0.

This section could do with a rewrite in 2.0.

Too true, I agree it needs to be looked at