Slitherine

In a current game (screenshot attached) I'm using the Egyptian army and I began the turn with my MF spearmen in contact with 2 Mac units 1Tharacian Peltasts and 1 Greek hoplites. To provide a bit of moral and real support I charged the Greek hoplites with another MF Spear unit. I then went to attack the Tharacian peltast with the unit that had originally been in contact and found the Greek hoplite unit was still providing support despite the fact it had just been charged. The number of dice the attacking unit uses is still reduced by one because of the supporting unit. My understanding was that this unit should no longer provide support as it had been attacked. Is this right or is this a bug? Screenshot attached

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/2793 ... tstill.png

Hmm, I am not sure on this but I believe its a sequence thing. Combat support only effects melee combat and not impact so the game mechanic, maybe, is you shouldnt lose a bonus for your support just because an additional unit(s) is thrown into the situation via impact. Next turn all 4 units involved should have equal support (or lack thereoff)

I think in the past that charging the supporting unit would stop it from supporting. I use to do this for that purpose and it use to work..unless I am losing my mind and let's not rule that out either.

With regard to the published rules (and I realize they are only indicative rather than cast in iron) they state

Adjacent enemy battle groups that are not attacked and that are not otherwise engaged will display the image. These battle groups have the effect of reducing the number of available attacks to the attacker during melee combat.

Well the unit in question was attacked through impact combat.

However I just did a test with the scenario editor and it happened again. I charged a unit and after which this unit still provided support to another unit in melee. So my point of contention is based off my ageing memory and that flimsy body of text known as the rules

Now I am convinced that there is problem with the supporting combat mechanics. In a game now I had a 2 units in contact with 2 other units. Initially one of the enemy units was providing support for the other. However during my turn in attacked that unit in a melee combat. I then went to attack the other unit but found it was still receiving support from the unit that had just been attached thereby reducing my number of dice by one.

I think there is clearly a bug here as this use to not happen. I watch these sort of combat details pretty closely and things have changed.

I'm also starting to get a little annoyed at pointing out these bugs/rule contradictions and nothing happens. Previously I highlighted how the effect of commanders in rallying troops was different from the published rules. It was a fairly material difference to what the rules state. I went to the trouble of testing out the situation with the scenario editor and published my findings yet there was no response from the Slitherine. If customers have taken the time to highlight and prove to you that there is a bug we would appreciate your response.

While I'm on my rant I'll continue on to state that I can put up with the slightly overly random combat and shooting mechanics but when you combine that with faulty changing game mechanic and direct contradictions of the rules I'm starting to re-assess how I spend my leisure time and certainly my cash in terms of further expansions.

I feel FOG could be a great game but the ability of the publisher to get it there is something I find very disappointing.

Rant over.

A couple of days ago, in a game against StockwellPete, I noticed that a routed commander was providing 'command' to units and this enabled me to utilise double moves.

I didn't know this was a bug, although at the time I commented that I found it surprising, although I accepted it may have been because the commander was still alive in the routed unit although you'd expect to be preoccupied trying to sort out his own unit before influencing others.

As a point, the on line help is not the "Rules". In this respect it is different from FoG TT where the published rules are definitive. The only rules for the PC version is the game code which is not available to the player to read the way the TT rules can be.

Especially in areas such as commander effects the on line help has been incorrect from the start. Slitherine has made some corectins for the on line help but it has not been a high priority area compared to actually enhancing the game engine and fixing actual bugs where the game does not work the way the designer intended.

Commander in FoG PC retain all their abilities when the BG they are with is routing but are unable to freely move until the BG rallies. If the BG is destroyed or leaves the board then the commander is lost and has no further effect. In FoG TT, a commander with a BG that routs may leave the BG after its initial rout move. After that he functions as normal. Due to the PC implementation restriction where the commander must always stay with a single BG rather than being able to move independently, the current behaviour where the commander retains his effect is as close as the PC version can come to the original TT rules.

Chris