Page 1 of 1
Bolstering
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 11:43 am
by philqw78
Is bolstering compulsory if there is a general with the BG. The only bit in the rules we could find was can bolster
It may (did) lead to cheese if not compulsory as a general can go cheer a BG up for CT but then not bolster them when fighting mounted so they can give the mounted a shoeing, or at least not make them shoo
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:02 pm
by stenic
An interesting question. Quite pertinant to our game Monday where my Tupi were beating knights and they bounced when I railled. With hindsight not rallying might have been better. Very risky though.
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:29 pm
by timurilenk
I do not believe it is - perhaps it should be
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:33 pm
by philqw78
timurilenk wrote:I do not believe it is - perhaps it should be
Well, Mr I'lenk, I will explain the situation. It was caused by a less than scrupuluos player refusing to bolster his disrupted MF whilst they were fighting LH with an IC attached, 4 dice to 2 at evens. Now you, and others, know the truth.
I can name him if you want!
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:36 pm
by zeitoun
for me it's not compulsory.
Since Bolster is after Breaking of , during the next melee phase you've got full dice to kill the LH.
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:46 pm
by timurilenk
philqw78 wrote:Well, Mr I'lenk, I will explain the situation. It was caused by a less than scrupuluos player refusing to bolster his disrupted MF whilst they were fighting LH with an IC attached, 4 dice to 2 at evens. Now you, and others, know the truth.
I can name him if you want!
That will not be necessary Mr 78 - I was present as you well know
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:04 pm
by philqw78
timurilenk wrote:That will not be necessary Mr 78 - I was present as you well know
To preserve his anonymity then this is what his name would look like in the language of the army he was using
I can translate for anybody else though
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:11 pm
by timurilenk
philqw78 wrote:
Spring Roll?
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:46 pm
by grahambriggs
It's optional. "May" not "must"
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:58 am
by kal5056
Shooting is Mandatory
Bolsterin is an option.
Gino
SMAC
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:28 am
by pyruse
Even if bolstering were compulsory you could simply move the general a little away from the BG during the JAP if you didn't want him to bolster.
So it's pointless making it compulsory.
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:13 pm
by philqw78
pyruse wrote:Even if bolstering were compulsory you could simply move the general a little away from the BG during the JAP if you didn't want him to bolster.
So it's pointless making it compulsory.
But he would not then be with the BG for the next cohesion test if they lost the next combat, so it would make a difference
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:31 pm
by Mehrunes
Why overcomplicate the (new) rules?
Just leave it as it is. In 99% you want to bolster anyway.
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:33 pm
by philqw78
Changing the word can to must is hardly complex.
In fact the less choices you get the l;ess complicated life is.
"Freedom is slavery"
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:37 pm
by imanfasil
I have a dumb question since Gino mentioned it... why is shooting mandatory? I honestly had not noticed that in the FoG rules but it did jump out at me reading the FoG-R rules last week.
Is there some huge tactical advantage (that I'm missing) to be gained from NOT shooting?
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:02 pm
by philqw78
The few I can think of are if you want to keep a BG there to rout it later, when charging it or when some enemy get behind, If it will get in your way when it routs from shooting. Ambush markers do not have to shoot as they are not there, yet. But shooters in a gully could keep themselves hidden from other shooters if they themselves do not.