Observations and queries fro first full game

[AlanCutner]

These are all things that came up in my first full game yesterday. Apologies if they're points we should have been able to find from the rules. But you all know what its like in the first game. Looking forwards to my second game now - a hammering in my Friday night game at Britcon!

1. Observation rather than query. We found the method of deployment a little odd. Theres effectively no command structure (ie. generals can command any troops) and BG's can deploy anywhere. There was a suspicion that deployment had been 'de-skilled' from DBM days. We also wondered why BG's couldn't have been assigned to generals and all a generals BG's deployed together - they still could be deployed anywhere but at loss of command control. Not expecting a rules change now!

2. When shock troops test not to charge, or skirmishers test not to evade, is the test by BL or BG? Is the variable movement test by BG or BL? We assumed CMT tests were generally by BL, but by BG when charges were involved, but couldn't fnd anything in the rules.

3. We had a BG of LF evade and interpenetrate a cavalry BG behind them. There was a general in contact with the rear of the cavalry BG. The evaders could get through the cavalryBG but didn't have enough move to go past the general. What happens?

4. See diagram below. BG A declared a charge on an opposing BG B. BG C wasn't in charge reach so was not a target, but declared an interception charge. It moved directly forward, ahead of BG B, so that BG A contacted it and not BG B. Was this correct? We also thought a 'strict' reading of the interception rule wouldn't have allowed it - the BG has to 'cross the path of the charging BG', and it doesn't: it startes and remains in the path.

C
C
BB
BB

AA
AA

5. Do Bow* count as Bow in shooting POA's?

6. We were using Thematic Byzantine cataphracts, but could find nothing specific about cataphracts in the rules. What do they count as on POA tables, eg. knightly or other lancers? If 'other' whats special about cataphracts apart from their armour?

7. A cavalry BG caught an evading LF BG with a single base contact. We made that 2 dice vs 1 dice in impact phase. All 3 dice were hits, and the LF survived both that cohesion test, and the one following melee (minimum 10 needed). It seemed odd that MF get a -1 for losing to mounted in the open, but LF don't. Although the LF had some lucky dice they weren't outrageous, and we were disappointed that the cavalry attack in their rear was so ineffective. Did we miss something?

8. Had following melee between BG A (swordsmen) and BG B (defensive spearmen)

BBB
bBBB
aAAA
aAAA

In first round bases A and B are at no POA, bases a fight at +, base b at -. BG B lose a base and take off the disadvantaged base (couldn't find anything stopping that). In second round bases a count as fighting the troops they overlap so fight at no POA. In other words the BG is worse off in the second round that the first, despite killing an entire enemy file. This just seemed wrong.

9. Does rear support shooting in impact phase use shooting rolls to hit, or impact rolls? (By the time we got to this we were really trired.....)

[hammy]

These are all things that came up in my first full game yesterday. Apologies if they're points we should have been able to find from the rules. But you all know what its like in the first game. Looking forwards to my second game now - a hammering in my Friday night game at Britcon!

1. Observation rather than query. We found the method of deployment a little odd. Theres effectively no command structure (ie. generals can command any troops) and BG's can deploy anywhere. There was a suspicion that deployment had been 'de-skilled' from DBM days. We also wondered why BG's couldn't have been assigned to generals and all a generals BG's deployed together - they still could be deployed anywhere but at loss of command control. Not expecting a rules change now!

There is IMO plenty of skill in the FoG deployment system, just a different one to DBM. I have not yet fully grasped the subtleties but while I sometimes outdeploy my opponent I often manage to outdeploy myself

2. When shock troops test not to charge, or skirmishers test not to evade, is the test by BL or BG? Is the variable movement test by BG or BL? We assumed CMT tests were generally by BL, but by BG when charges were involved, but couldn't fnd anything in the rules.

All tests to charge and VMD's are by BG. BL CMT's are there to allow several BG's to move together but the restrictions on what a BL can do as a move mean a lot of moves involving CMT's have to be by BGs only

3. We had a BG of LF evade and interpenetrate a cavalry BG behind them. There was a general in contact with the rear of the cavalry BG. The evaders could get through the cavalryBG but didn't have enough move to go past the general. What happens?

Just move the general to make room. I believe that the general is moved the minimum amount. Generals are essentially markers rather than the whole element of DBM.

4. See diagram below. BG A declared a charge on an opposing BG B. BG C wasn't in charge reach so was not a target, but declared an interception charge. It moved directly forward, ahead of BG B, so that BG A contacted it and not BG B. Was this correct? We also thought a 'strict' reading of the interception rule wouldn't have allowed it - the BG has to 'cross the path of the charging BG', and it doesn't: it startes and remains in the path.

C
C
BB
BB

AA
AA

C can IMO make an interception charge but it may well not prevent A from hitting B as A can potentially step forwards into contact with B.

5. Do Bow* count as Bow in shooting POA's?

Yes

6. We were using Thematic Byzantine cataphracts, but could find nothing specific about cataphracts in the rules. What do they count as on POA tables, eg. knightly or other lancers? If 'other' whats special about cataphracts apart from their armour?

Cataphracts are essentially heavily armoured cavalry that move slower and maneuver less well. If they were not a separate troop type there would be execptions all over the movement rules.

7. A cavalry BG caught an evading LF BG with a single base contact. We made that 2 dice vs 1 dice in impact phase. All 3 dice were hits, and the LF survived both that cohesion test, and the one following melee (minimum 10 needed). It seemed odd that MF get a -1 for losing to mounted in the open, but LF don't. Although the LF had some lucky dice they weren't outrageous, and we were disappointed that the cavalry attack in their rear was so ineffective. Did we miss something?

Assuming the LF were caught in the rear they would be automatically disrupted.

LF don't get the -1 for losing to mounted because they only get half dice instead.

While the LF might survive the impact once the melee starts the cavalry will likely still be at ++ and have at least twice as many dice. I would not expect the LF to last long.

8. Had following melee between BG A (swordsmen) and BG B (defensive spearmen)

BBB
bBBB
aAAA
aAAA

In first round bases A and B are at no POA, bases a fight at +, base b at -. BG B lose a base and take off the disadvantaged base (couldn't find anything stopping that). In second round bases a count as fighting the troops they overlap so fight at no POA. In other words the BG is worse off in the second round that the first, despite killing an entire enemy file. This just seemed wrong.

Losses should be taken from the rear rank in preference to the front. I believe it is detailed in the removing bases section.

9. Does rear support shooting in impact phase use shooting rolls to hit, or impact rolls? (By the time we got to this we were really trired.....)

I think it uses shooting POAs but impact hit rolls but may well be wrong

See you at Britcon

Hammy

[AlanCutner]

Thanks for the response Hammy. Couple of follow-ups....

3. The only way the general could move and remain in contact with his BG would be to go in front of them. Otherwise he loses contact. Is that what happens (I'd have no problem with it if it was).

4. It wasn't possible to step forward to contact BG B. But your answer conforms with what we did.

8. Base Removal specifies that FRONT RANK bases must be removed, and other ranks shuffle up. But re-reading the rule I see that if theres a gap in the front rank then front rank bases shuffle sideways to fill the gap. Does this mean bases already in contact shuffle? And if so dothey shuffle to cover a position that is now only an overlap? Sorry - still confused on this one.

[hammy]

Thanks for the response Hammy. Couple of follow-ups....

3. The only way the general could move and remain in contact with his BG would be to go in front of them. Otherwise he loses contact. Is that what happens (I'd have no problem with it if it was).

4. It wasn't possible to step forward to contact BG B. But your answer conforms with what we did.

8. Base Removal specifies that FRONT RANK bases must be removed, and other ranks shuffle up. But re-reading the rule I see that if theres a gap in the front rank then front rank bases shuffle sideways to fill the gap. Does this mean bases already in contact shuffle? And if so dothey shuffle to cover a position that is now only an overlap? Sorry - still confused on this one.

The general would end up in front of the BG. He is still with the BG

If stepping forward wasn't possible consider that the intercepting BG is blowing a bugle charge and heading to the rescue.

I will reread the base removal rules but I am sure that front ranks essentially stay there and losses are filled from the rear.

Hammy

[neilhammond]

A couple of additional comments:

Re base removal - I'm not sure if it's correct, but I tend to remove bases from the end of the line that is most heavily engaged or has taken most hits if in a multi-unit combat. In practice for most melees you just take off the rear rank if the unit is homogenous. The only problem is if it's a mixed BG then it becomes important to remove the front rank. So a late roman unit with HI front rank and LF bow rear rank, the unit might get whittled down enough for the LF support to get drawn into the combat. Sliding bases already in combat 1-element sideways to fill a loss wouldn't be correct IMO.

Re cataphracts: They get Other Lancer POA in impact; sword in melee. They are usually better armoured than most opponents in the melee phase so will probably get an edge there. They are also less vulnerable than most cavalry to bow/jav/sling. The "problem" with cataphracts is that most people new to FOG play then DBM style as Kn(X) - i.e. one rank with QK capability.

Neil

[AlanCutner]

Thanks for all the comments.

On removal of bases I get the impression that people are playing it as they think it should be done, not as written. I quote the rule

'Close combat: Any front rank base facing the enemy battle group which inflicted most hits on the battle group'

Because rear rank fill in (later rule), this is effectively removal of rear rank in most cases. But not in the situation we had - and it won't be unusual when fighting spearmen. I think removal of the element that gives the opponent an advantage has a little bit of a cheesy smell, but can't find anything to prevent it. An additional point to be made is that removal of the disadvantaged base, and therefore the entire file, also stopped me moving more troops in as an overlap. Win-win for the spearmen.

It would help to have a rule that no element can be removed that would leave a narrower combat front that when melee phase started, unless there are no other options available.

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks for all the comments.

On removal of bases I get the impression that people are playing it as they think it should be done, not as written. I quote the rule

'Close combat: Any front rank base facing the enemy battle group which inflicted most hits on the battle group'

Because rear rank fill in (later rule), this is effectively removal of rear rank in most cases. But not in the situation we had - and it won't be unusual when fighting spearmen. I think removal of the element that gives the opponent an advantage has a little bit of a cheesy smell, but can't find anything to prevent it. An additional point to be made is that removal of the disadvantaged base, and therefore the entire file, also stopped me moving more troops in as an overlap. Win-win for the spearmen.

It would help to have a rule that no element can be removed that would leave a narrower combat front that when melee phase started, unless there are no other options available.

Have you perhaps missed the following rule?:

All vacated front rank close combat fighting positions (except overlaps) must be filled if the battle group has any bases available to do so. Non-front rank bases must be used if any are available, and can be from any part of the battle group. If not, front rank bases that are not in close combat or are only in close combat as an overlap must be used. If there are no such bases available, and there is a gap in the front rank, front rank bases in close combat must be shifted sideways to fill the gap. The player owning the battle group chooses which direction to shift, but if possible, it must leave at least one base in contact with each opposing enemy battle group (except those fighting only as an overlap).

So you can remove "b", but you would have to replace it by one of the rear rank "B"s, which, of course, defeats the point of removing "b".

[hammy]

The reason that the rules have to state that you remove front rank bases is so that mixed BG's can't take the rear rank missile troops when losses are called for.

In 95% or more of combats you in practice remove rear rank bases but if you have rule that says you remove rear rank bases you can be sure that everyone with LF supported HF legionaries will be removing LF as melee casualties.

It is a case of a rule having to be made more complex to remove cheese and causing confusion as a result of people only reading half the new longer rule.

In Alan's example the element giving the advantage coule be removed but it would then have to be replaced by a rear rank base thus recreating the advantage and adding advantage at another point.

Hammy

[AlanCutner]

Fair enough!