Slitherine

In one of the games at Leeds I had 2 BG of Kn hit a mixed line of Sp and Cm, with the camel on the join of the two Kn BGs, hopefully the following ASCII art will come through ok:

SSSCCSSS
KKKKKKKK

There were minor offsets forwards and back but one of the positives of AoW is how little this mattered.

So, firstly, as I understand it, there are 4 Kn disordered by the Cm, the two in combat plus one either side.

This leads to my question, when working out the number of dice in combats is the following correct?

From left to right:

3 Kn from BG A vs Sp from a single BG, 2 dice each, 1 is disordered (losing 1 dice per 3, ie nothing)
1 Kn from BG A vs Cm from a single BG, 2 dice, disordered (losing 1 dice per 3, ie nothing)
1 Kn from BG B vs Cm from a single BG, 2 dice, disordered (losing 1 dice per 3, ie nothing)
3 Kn from BG B vs Sp from a single BG, 2 dice each, 1 is disordered (losing 1 dice per 3, ie nothing)

or should all the Kn disordered by Cm be lumped together and then dice removed?
which combats should they be removed from?

This breaking up of combats and effects is one of the more unappealing sides of the game at the moment unfortunately.

I was the opponent in this game and did it find it confusing. In my next game, I had 2 spearmen BG's fighting a legion. As the legion became disrupted and lost bases, the number of die dropped until there were less die than bases in contact. At this point my opponent decided to allocate all the die to combat with one of my BG's and not fight against the other.

In the first case (above) the disorder seemed to be pointless. In the second, there seemed no clear guidelines on how die should be allocated to these multiple combats.

niksharp wrote:I was the opponent in this game and did it find it confusing. In my next game, I had 2 spearmen BG's fighting a legion. As the legion became disrupted and lost bases, the number of die dropped until there were less die than bases in contact. At this point my opponent decided to allocate all the die to combat with one of my BG's and not fight against the other.

In the first case (above) the disorder seemed to be pointless. In the second, there seemed no clear guidelines on how die should be allocated to these multiple combats.

Whether the guidelines are clear enough remains to be seen, but they do exist - they are in the Glossary of Basic Mechanisms. (Always a good first place to look to resolve any confusion on basic mechanisms). In particular they do not allow you to use all your dice against one of the BGs you are facing.

garyb wrote:From left to right:

3 Kn from BG A vs Sp from a single BG, 2 dice each, 1 is disordered (losing 1 dice per 3, ie nothing)
1 Kn from BG A vs Cm from a single BG, 2 dice, disordered (losing 1 dice per 3, ie nothing)
1 Kn from BG B vs Cm from a single BG, 2 dice, disordered (losing 1 dice per 3, ie nothing)
3 Kn from BG B vs Sp from a single BG, 2 dice each, 1 is disordered (losing 1 dice per 3, ie nothing)

In this case aren't more than two bases of knights dissordered? I thought that camels and elephants dissordered within 2 MU which would actually dissorder three knights in each BG.

If only one base of a BG is dissordered then you will still roll 2 dice but if more than one is dissordered you consider the number of dice rolled by the BG as a whole.

Assuming three dissordered bases per BG of knights then instead of 8 dice per BG you will only get 6. Of these 6 dice one will have to be against the camels and four against the spear. The final dice can be either against the camels or the spear.

The same for the other BG.

Hammy

hammy wrote: In this case aren't more than two bases of knights dissordered?

No, this has been raised a couple of times, because it's now the only place in the rules that refers to a base width (other than tyrning 90 degrees). A few people have asked if it could be changed to 2MU, and it's been argued that it needs to remain at 1 base width in order to get the desired effect. Last time was here:

http://www.slitherine.com/eslitherine/f ... php?t=2529

plewis66 wrote:

hammy wrote: In this case aren't more than two bases of knights dissordered?

No, this has been raised a couple of times, because it's now the only place in the rules that refers to a base width (other than tyrning 90 degrees). A few people have asked if it could be changed to 2MU, and it's been argued that it needs to remain at 1 base width in order to get the desired effect. Last time was here:

http://www.slitherine.com/eslitherine/f ... php?t=2529

OK so with each BG of knights with one base fighting camels then there will be two bases dissordered, the one in contact with the camel and the one next to it. That would mean each BG of knights gets to roll 7 dice rather than 8. Of those 5 would have to be against the Sp, 1 against the Cm and the other one up to the owner of the knights.

Hammy

hammy wrote:

plewis66 wrote:

hammy wrote: In this case aren't more than two bases of knights dissordered?

No, this has been raised a couple of times, because it's now the only place in the rules that refers to a base width (other than tyrning 90 degrees). A few people have asked if it could be changed to 2MU, and it's been argued that it needs to remain at 1 base width in order to get the desired effect. Last time was here:

http://www.slitherine.com/eslitherine/f ... php?t=2529

OK so with each BG of knights with one base fighting camels then there will be two bases dissordered, the one in contact with the camel and the one next to it. That would mean each BG of knights gets to roll 7 dice rather than 8. Of those 5 would have to be against the Sp, 1 against the Cm and the other one up to the owner of the knights.

Hammy

Please can you explain how you come to that result Hammy. My understanding of the rules is that as combats are broken into what is facing what, then when calculating for the Knights v Spear there are 2 dice at disordered level so no removal, and then two dice against a camel which is no removal. The same applying to the other side of the combat. This is all as Gary wrote. Where does it say the effect is cummulative in this scenario and the player can decide where to place the odd dice?

Confused

Andy

like to add my 'confused of Southampton' to this.

Regards
Matt

I think that looking in the section on Combat Dice in the Glossary of Basic Mechanisms might prove enlightening. (or not).

rbodleyscott wrote:I think that looking in the section on Combat Dice in the Glossary of Basic Mechanisms might prove enlightening. (or not).

I think that the text in the glossary is reasonably clear but it may be that because it is in the glossary people don't look there unless they are trying to clear something up.

Hammy

P. 90 (probably) of V. 5.01

??? If a battle group which is losing combat dice due to DISRUPTION, FRAGMENTATION, DISORDER, SEVERE DISORDER or being Skirmishers in close combat is fighting against more than one enemy battle group, first determine the total number of combat dice the battle group should lose. Apportion the lost dice, if possible, in proportion to the number of bases fighting each enemy battle group, leaving at least 1 dice (if possible) against each enemy battle group.

hammy wrote:I think that the text in the glossary is reasonably clear but it may be that because it is in the glossary people don't look there unless they are trying to clear something up.

Indeed, but it is a good place to look when trying to clear something up.

rbodleyscott wrote:

hammy wrote:I think that the text in the glossary is reasonably clear but it may be that because it is in the glossary people don't look there unless they are trying to clear something up.

Indeed, but it is a good place to look when trying to clear something up.

yeah yeah some of us are still getting over the shock of there actually being a glossary, let alone using it!

Oh and thanks for the enlightenment, makes sense now.

Regards
Matt

NOTE EDITED FOR MY MISTAKE IN REMEMBERING THAT THE K STOOD FOR KNIGHTS DOH!

In one of the games at Leeds I had 2 BG of Kn hit a mixed line of Sp and Cm, with the camel on the join of the two Kn BGs, hopefully the following ASCII art will come through ok:

SSSCCSSS
KKKKKKKK

There were minor offsets forwards and back but one of the positives of AoW is how little this mattered.

It is in the glossary in general terms (and likely needs tightening) but to state here - you lose 1 per 3 in total from those affected within a BG. If there is a batch of 3 dice in a single BG so affected then 1 dice reducton must come from those bases, if not then from the largest such group affected and if not a choice IIRC.

So in the above....assuming melee..AND that is was a single line of Knights in one BG....

a) there are 4 K disordered so they must lose 2 dice - being 8 in total for combat at 2 dice each
b) the dice must be lost from the middle four as these are the ones affected
c) So we get 6-3, 3(down one)-2, 6-3 as these 4 are all fighting one BG - that Camels.

As it is 2 BG of K with a split down the middle you get 4 dice affected in each BG so both must lose 1 dice. 2 dice of those affected are vs the Sp and 2 vs the Camels so in this case you would be able to choose where to drop the dice at present for 5-3/2-2/2-2/5-3 if you chose to reduce vs the spears. It raises the interesting point that we should probably add - troops fighting a BG causing disorder as a top priority item in the list. This would force the dice reduction to come from the Kn vs the camels and make is 6-3/1-1/1-1/6-3 overall.

Si

I thought I understood, until Simon's post

If it's two BGs of 4 Kn each with 1 Kn facing Cm do they take no dice loss?

Or do the Kn to the overlap sides of the Cm also suffer disorder and thus have 2 Kn per BG disordered, hence losing a dice per Kn BG?

I suspected the later, with the dice removed coming from in front of the Cm, though this would mean that the Cm end up being faced by only 2 dice.

Cheers,
Gary

I thought I understood, until Simon's post

I think Si was having a mental aberration when he wrote his post as he seems to be saying that each knight has one combat dice. Each has two, and the disorganised knights will be the two fighting the camels and the two in corner-to-corner contact with the camels (total of 2 knights in ach BG). So in each knight BG there will be 4 dice from disorganised knights, which means that one dice will be lost.

Yesterday mental aberation over with - I forgot the k were Knights. I'll adjust the numbers

Si

shall wrote:As it is 2 BG of K with a split down the middle you get 4 dice affected in each BG so both must lose 1 dice. 2 dice of those affected are vs the Sp and 2 vs the Camels so in this case you would be able to choose where to drop the dice at present for 5-3/2-2/2-2/5-3 if you chose to reduce vs the spears. It raises the interesting point that we should probably add - troops fighting a BG causing disorder as a top priority item in the list. This would force the dice reduction to come from the Kn vs the camels and make is 6-3/1-1/1-1/6-3 overall.
Si

Thanks, I follow how it's done now, this does mean that the "perfect" use of the Cm is to fight the seam between two enemy BGs here as it means the Kn can only get 1 dice each to fight them purely because of the game mechanism. I think it could be left to the player removing the dice to choose where it comes from, effectively allowing them to choose where to focus their resources as long as each opponent gets at least some dice.

Cheers,
Gary

warfareeast wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

hammy wrote:I think that the text in the glossary is reasonably clear but it may be that because it is in the glossary people don't look there unless they are trying to clear something up.

Indeed, but it is a good place to look when trying to clear something up.

yeah yeah some of us are still getting over the shock of there actually being a glossary, let alone using it!

Oh and thanks for the enlightenment, makes sense now.

Regards
Matt

I'd like to add my thanks to Matts for the explanation.

shall wrote:
As it is 2 BG of K with a split down the middle you get 4 dice affected in each BG so both must lose 1 dice. 2 dice of those affected are vs the Sp and 2 vs the Camels so in this case you would be able to choose where to drop the dice at present for 5-3/2-2/2-2/5-3 if you chose to reduce vs the spears. It raises the interesting point that we should probably add - troops fighting a BG causing disorder as a top priority item in the list. This would force the dice reduction to come from the Kn vs the camels and make is 6-3/1-1/1-1/6-3 overall.
Si



Thanks, I follow how it's done now, this does mean that the "perfect" use of the Cm is to fight the seam between two enemy BGs here as it means the Kn can only get 1 dice each to fight them purely because of the game mechanism. I think it could be left to the player removing the dice to choose where it comes from, effectively allowing them to choose where to focus their resources as long as each opponent gets at least some dice.

Cheers,
Gary

We are not altogether averse to countng acroos BGs but when we tried it we found it rather fiddly for the value added involved. At the end of the day the best use for camels is to have 4 of them in combat so it reduces dice whatever.

Note as the KN have 2 dice each there is an effect - but if they were Cv and 1 dice troops you can get it happening.

Also note its the Knights who want to try to line up their split vs the camels and this is isn't easy. The single BG in the meantime is trying to hit one BG full on ...and in my experience usually wins this little game.

Si