Slitherine

XX
XX

YYZZ
YYZZ

X is a unit of 4 cav, bow
Y and Z are 2 enemy units.
Normally X would shoot with 2 front and 1 rear rank dice. How does X allocate dice in this case?

My opponent said they only get 1.5 on each and so rounded down for shooting, they only have 1 shot vs each enemy and lose the 3rd dice. Is this right?

I'm guessing that your diagram doesn't quite do justice to your situation.

Here's my version:








= filler
=cav
= enemy 1
= enemy 2.

In this situation you get 1 dice on each.

you get all of the first rank, plus half of the rear rank. 1 front rank on each and 1:2 dice for thre rear rank. As you only have 1 base facing off each enemy you don't get to have 1:2.

such diagramatic one upmanship!

seems a bit harsh to lose one dice, open to gamey-ness, but if that's how it's played, c'est la vie...

richafricanus wrote:such diagramatic one upmanship!

seems a bit harsh to lose one dice, open to gamey-ness, but if that's how it's played, c'est la vie...

Yes, I agree, but it is true unfortunately.

I have that situation with my Louis XIV FoG:R all the time. You easily lose that extra dice. It really hurts.

I'm 98.374% sure that it is the same in FoG:AM (it was) but will sit corrected if it's changed in V2

richafricanus wrote: seems a bit harsh to lose one dice, open to gamey-ness, but if that's how it's played, c'est la vie...

That is how it is played and how the rules are written.
C'est la vie.

The alternative would allow the player to choose and I presumed the authors thought that allowed to much to the shooting players. Note for a long time people felt shooting was too powerful in game terms.

hazelbark wrote:

richafricanus wrote: seems a bit harsh to lose one dice, open to gamey-ness, but if that's how it's played, c'est la vie...

That is how it is played and how the rules are written.
C'est la vie.

The alternative would allow the player to choose and I presumed the authors thought that allowed to much to the shooting players. Note for a long time people felt shooting was too powerful in game terms.

Yes, then you may have ended up with people being gamey the other way, deliberately picking on one unit by 'splitting their fire' and concentrating the extra die on one unit.

richafricanus wrote:such diagramatic one upmanship!

seems a bit harsh to lose one dice, open to gamey-ness, but if that's how it's played, c'est la vie...

One of the things you get as a result of this is when two mounted horse archers armies meet is a degree ofback and forthe manouver as each side alternately tries to gang up shooting. So the mechanism does have the side benefit of producing a slightly more fluid battle - which is a little more realistic in look for these armies

I thought you couldn't split your fire ?

I thought you couldn't split your fire ?

You have to obey the shooting priorities base by base - not by BG. This sometimes will mean that you have to split your fire.

Thanks for that. We've been doing it wrong then.