systematic read-through of v6.0

[madaxeman]

Thought I should do this at least once before next weekend...

So, some comments:

Page 7 - Battle Group Formations
"Only the rear rank is allowed to have less bases". This paragraph can easily be read to say that (as an example) and 8-strong BG could be set up with 6 in the front rank and 2 in the rear rank. I don't think this is the intention, and so there should be something about evening the ranks somehow....?

Page 17 - "Simple" & "Difficult" moves. This whole teminology still confuses me. I suspect it may be because "Simple" moves are NOT the opposite of "Difficult" moves, but its easy to assume that they should be - the definition of "Advances" on page 19 also feels somehow orphaned. Is there a different way of describing - and naming - "Difficult" moves and "Advances" ?

As far as I can work out, the whole "difficult move" thing means that wheeling or moving less than max speed is a CMT for undrilled foot unless they are beyond 6" or with a general - and this is also a CMT for anyone doing any sort of 2nd move at all. Is this right? Maybe its just easier to have this as a cause for a CMT rather than clogging up the move table with it? Or throw it in the good old "2nd move" section - which should be here!

Page 28 - Troops who may charge without orders. "Shock Troops" sounds cool, but basically it means lancers, impact foot offensive spears, and pikemen. Is it really needed as a classification? Or should the list be spelt out here again for clarity?

Page 32 - last bullet before diagram, middle of page. "It then completes its full move" - does this mean the wheel is part of the measurement of the VMD, or not? Could be read either way.

Page 34 - Conforming to enemy in combat. Opening paragraph - does the BG as a whole shift around to conform, or do only the bases already in combat shift and line up. Again I think I know the intent, but the language is unclear.

Page 46 - the way you work out the whole "1 dice per 3" malarkey still hasn't been explained by now - it probably should be, and this is as good a point in the rules as any - its pretty key and has caused clearly confusion before.

Page 52 - Heavy Weapon "also cancels out better armour" - is this as well as its own POA balancing the "better armour" POA, or in addition? The repetition in the "Better armour" POA is probably counter-productive .

[rbodleyscott]

Page 7 - Battle Group Formations
"Only the rear rank is allowed to have less bases". This paragraph can easily be read to say that (as an example) and 8-strong BG could be set up with 6 in the front rank and 2 in the rear rank.

It can.

Page 17 - "Simple" & "Difficult" moves. This whole teminology still confuses me. I suspect it may be because "Simple" moves are NOT the opposite of "Difficult" moves, but its easy to assume that they should be - the definition of "Advances" on page 19 also feels somehow orphaned. Is there a different way of describing - and naming - "Difficult" moves and "Advances" ?

If there is, we haven't thought of it.

As far as I can work out, the whole "difficult move" thing means that wheeling or moving less than max speed is a CMT for undrilled foot unless they are beyond 6" or with a general

Yes, we took it out of the table because it clogged it up.

- and this is also a CMT for anyone doing any sort of 2nd move at all. Is this right?

Don't think so. What makes you think that?

Page 32 - last bullet before diagram, middle of page. "It then completes its full move" - does this mean the wheel is part of the measurement of the VMD?

Yes.

Page 34 - Conforming to enemy in combat. Opening paragraph - does the BG as a whole shift around to conform, or do only the bases already in combat shift and line up. Again I think I know the intent, but the language is unclear.

The whole battle group. Check out the reworded version in the Changes from 6.0 thread, which is hopefullly clearer.

Page 52 - Heavy Weapon "also cancels out better armour" - is this as well as its own POA balancing the "better armour" POA, or in addition?

You have lost me. How can it be in addition when there is only one such POA?

[rogerg]

The "1 dice per 3" has not caused any confusion in the games I have played. When working out dice per base it is the usual round down. This is usually the 'half the second rank rounded down' type of count. Once you have the number of dice from this, then disorder etc. removes one dice from each complete set of three (or two if fragemented).

Granted it doesn't read very clearly, but I 'm not sure it can be simplified. In practive it is simple. E.g. two ranks of three unsteady archers shooting start with four dice, three front rank and one for the rounded down half rear rank. From these four dice (a full three plus one) a single dice is lost for being unsteady. Three dice are rolled.

[madaxeman]

Page 7 - Battle Group Formations
"Only the rear rank is allowed to have less bases". This paragraph can easily be read to say that (as an example) and 8-strong BG could be set up with 6 in the front rank and 2 in the rear rank.

It can.

OK - but not clear from the examples given, which seem to imply you have even ranks wwhere possible

Page 17 - "Simple" & "Difficult" moves. This whole teminology still confuses me. I suspect it may be because "Simple" moves are NOT the opposite of "Difficult" moves, but its easy to assume that they should be - the definition of "Advances" on page 19 also feels somehow orphaned. Is there a different way of describing - and naming - "Difficult" moves and "Advances" ?

If there is, we haven't thought of it.

As far as I can work out, the whole "difficult move" thing means that wheeling or moving less than max speed is a CMT for undrilled foot unless they are beyond 6" or with a general

Yes, we took it out of the table because it clogged it up.

- and this is also a CMT for anyone doing any sort of 2nd move at all. Is this right?

Don't think so. What makes you think that?

I think what I'm saying is can you drop the whole "difficult move" definition and fit the concept into the section on 2nd moves (all troops doing a 2nd move must take a cmt if they wheel or move short unless with a general or a long way from enemy) , and also put an extra "NB" into the CMT table as a way for undrilled foot to avoid a CMT.

Page 34 - Conforming to enemy in combat. Opening paragraph - does the BG as a whole shift around to conform, or do only the bases already in combat shift and line up. Again I think I know the intent, but the language is unclear.

The whole battle group. Check out the reworded version in the Changes from 6.0 thread, which is hopefullly clearer.

WOW - so you can shift sideways loads of base widths in order to maximise frontage in contact with an enemy - and do so with complete BGs, even if they only start by clipping an enemy at impact ????????????????????????

Page 52 - Heavy Weapon "also cancels out better armour" - is this as well as its own POA balancing the "better armour" POA, or in addition?

You have lost me. How can it be in addition when there is only one such POA?

Is it:
Hvy weapon (+1 POA) vs Better Armour (+1 POA) = net no POAs
or
Hvy weapon (+1 POA) vs Better Armour (+1 POA, but hang on, this POA is cancelled by the Hvy Weapon Magic Power, so this POA doesn't count) = Hvy Weapon guy has net +1 POA

[hammy]

WOW - so you can shift sideways loads of base widths in order to maximise frontage in contact with an enemy - and do so with complete BGs, even if they only start by clipping an enemy at impact ????????????????????????

What should happen is the whole BG aligns to the contacted BG if possible but without increasing the number of bases in contact. Once this happens you can then feed extra bases into the melee so essentially slide the BG sideways one base width.

Is it:
Hvy weapon (+1 POA) vs Better Armour (+1 POA) = net no POAs
or
Hvy weapon (+1 POA) vs Better Armour (+1 POA, but hang on, this POA is cancelled by the Hvy Weapon Magic Power, so this POA doesn't count) = Hvy Weapon guy has net +1 POA

The second.

Consider Dacian falxmen (unprotected heavy weapon) against Roman auxiliaries (armoured light spear / swordsmen)

In melee the Dacians get a + POA for heavy weapon and the Romans get a + for swordsmen and should get a + for better armour but this is cancelled by the heavy weapons so the net POA is 0 rather than + for the Romans.

If the Dacians hit legionaries (armoured skilled swordsmen) then they don't get a + for heavy weapon against skilled swordsmen but the heavy weapon does negate the better Roman armour POA leaving just the swordsmen POA so the Romans end up on +.

Hope that makes sense.

Hammy

[madaxeman]

WOW - so you can shift sideways loads of base widths in order to maximise frontage in contact with an enemy - and do so with complete BGs, even if they only start by clipping an enemy at impact ????????????????????????

What should happen is the whole BG aligns to the contacted BG if possible but without increasing the number of bases in contact. Once this happens you can then feed extra bases into the melee so essentially slide the BG sideways one base width.

Is it:
Hvy weapon (+1 POA) vs Better Armour (+1 POA) = net no POAs
or
Hvy weapon (+1 POA) vs Better Armour (+1 POA, but hang on, this POA is cancelled by the Hvy Weapon Magic Power, so this POA doesn't count) = Hvy Weapon guy has net +1 POA

The second.

Consider Dacian falxmen (unprotected heavy weapon) against Roman auxiliaries (armoured light spear / swordsmen)

In melee the Dacians get a + POA for heavy weapon and the Romans get a + for swordsmen and should get a + for better armour but this is cancelled by the heavy weapons so the net POA is 0 rather than + for the Romans.

If the Dacians hit legionaries (armoured skilled swordsmen) then they don't get a + for heavy weapon against skilled swordsmen but the heavy weapon does negate the better Roman armour POA leaving just the swordsmen POA so the Romans end up on +.

Hope that makes sense.

Hammy

Hi Hammy

This is what I actually understood to be the case in both situations.

However the wording of the rules in the first instance (I felt) could easily be read to say the whole unit conforms as far as is necessary to line up unit-to-unit. There are other rulesets sets out there where unit-to-unit conforming is mandatory, so its not a totally unusual supposition people may be bringing with them to these rules

The wording in the 2nd I felt was just a little untidy

[hammy]

This is what I actually understood to be the case in both situations.

However the wording of the rules in the first instance (I felt) could easily be read to say the whole unit conforms as far as is necessary to line up unit-to-unit. There are other rulesets sets out there where unit-to-unit conforming is mandatory, so its not a totally unusual supposition people may be bringing with them to these rules

The conforming rule states:

At the start of the manoeuvre phase, the active player’s battle groups already in close combat with enemy must (unless otherwise stated below or physically impossible) pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact:

How would this allow you to conform to enemy bases that you are not in contact with? I think the key phrease is "enemy bases in contact"

The wording in the 2nd I felt was just a little untidy

Interesting,

I went off the phrase in the POA table. As far as I understand there are five possible ways to get a melee POA:

Base weapon
Lots of ranks of pike
Better armour
Fighting in two directions
Being uphill etc.

The better armour POA is a + "against any except heavy weapon, elephants, chariots, artillery or battle wagons"

What is the confusing bit?

Just trying to help debug things.

Hammy

[madaxeman]

The conforming rule states:

At the start of the manoeuvre phase, the active player’s battle groups already in close combat with enemy must (unless otherwise stated below or physically impossible) pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact:

How would this allow you to conform to enemy bases that you are not in contact with? I think the key phrease is "enemy bases in contact"

I was reading the phrase "..battle groups already in combat must..." as if the battle groups are the things doing the conforming, not just the bases within the battlegroups . Tidying up the bases already in combat is not the same as the whole battle group conforming.

Maybe the last line could be "...pivot and/or slide by the minimum necessary so that its bases that contacted enemy in the impact phase conform to the enemy bases they are in contact with". Pedantry perhaps....

The wording in the 2nd I felt was just a little untidy

Interesting,

I went off the phrase in the POA table. As far as I understand there are five possible ways to get a melee POA:

Base weapon
Lots of ranks of pike
Better armour
Fighting in two directions
Being uphill etc.

The better armour POA is a + "against any except heavy weapon, elephants, chariots, artillery or battle wagons"

What is the confusing bit?

Just trying to help debug things.

Hammy

I thought the repetition was potentially confusing the issue - the QR sheet is probably clearer !

[hammy]

The conforming rule states:

At the start of the manoeuvre phase, the active player’s battle groups already in close combat with enemy must (unless otherwise stated below or physically impossible) pivot and/or slide bases by the minimum necessary to conform to the enemy bases in contact:

How would this allow you to conform to enemy bases that you are not in contact with? I think the key phrease is "enemy bases in contact"

I was reading the phrase "..battle groups already in combat must..." as if the battle groups are the things doing the conforming, not just the bases within the battlegroups . Tidying up the bases already in combat is not the same as the whole battle group conforming.

Maybe the last line could be "...pivot and/or slide by the minimum necessary so that its bases that contacted enemy in the impact phase conform to the enemy bases they are in contact with". Pedantry perhaps....

Possibly.

I think this is one where there may have been a diagram in the earlier rules.... Checks old rules and no there is not a diagram in them but there is a refrence to a diagram so hopefully there will be a nice one that makes exactly what happens clear.

The way I have always played is that the whole BG conforms but only the bases in contact stay in contact.

Where things get a bit odd is when you have hit the side of an enemy BG but not as a "flank" charge. You end up with the charging BG sliding back and across to line up.

Hammy