1 per 2...

[ChrisTofalos]

Interesting problem in a club game last night, using the draft of V3: A 7-base BG lost a melee, taking 3 hits, and ended up losing a base. So, they get a -1 for losing 25% but what about another -1 for receiving 1 hit per 2 bases? Is it 3 hits on the original 7 bases at the time of fighting (not enough for 1 per 2) or 3 hits on the remaining 6 bases at the time of the test?

[petedalby]

Great question Chris.

P115 includes the sentence: "(..base losses that will result from the death roll may affect the cohesion test modifiers)."

So the implication is yes - but I don't know for certain. Hopefully Terry will advise on the intent in this scenario.

[ChrisTofalos]

may affect

Don't you just love the wording in wargames rules, Pete?!

[nikgaukroger]

Looks pretty clear to me - far more than an implication.

[madaxeman]

wow. So any 4-pack that loses a combat and loses a base will always be on at least a net -2 in the resulting cohesion test.

That will certainly speed things up!

[nikgaukroger]

Crash, bang, wallop and off to the bar quickly seems to be popular these days

I also understand it is also to provide incentives for mounted to be in 6's (and, no doubt, to discourage swarms).

[terrys]

Interesting problem in a club game last night, using the draft of V3: A 7-base BG lost a melee, taking 3 hits, and ended up losing a base. So, they get a -1 for losing 25% but what about another -1 for receiving 1 hit per 2 bases? Is it 3 hits on the original 7 bases at the time of fighting (not enough for 1 per 2) or 3 hits on the remaining 6 bases at the time of the test?

Since the test is for: 1HP2B from COMBAT or SHOOTING - I would rule that the -1 for 1HP2B would not count.
The -25% and -50% losses count if either are true at the time of the test.
However, since the 1HP2B is "from combat" or "from shooting" it would only be relative to the number of bases that were present when the combat or shooting occurred.

[prb4]

Now I am confused.

I would have said it counts as 1 per 2, bases losses being removed prior to cohesion test in the turn sequence.

Is this correct or not?

[vexillia]

Interesting problem in a club game last night, using the draft of V3: A 7-base BG lost a melee, taking 3 hits, and ended up losing a base. So, they get a -1 for losing 25% but what about another -1 for receiving 1 hit per 2 bases? Is it 3 hits on the original 7 bases at the time of fighting (not enough for 1 per 2) or 3 hits on the remaining 6 bases at the time of the test?

Since the test is for: 1HP2B from COMBAT or SHOOTING - I would rule that the -1 for 1HP2B would not count.
The -25% and -50% losses count if either are true at the time of the test.
However, since the 1HP2B is "from combat" or "from shooting" it would only be relative to the number of bases that were present when the combat or shooting occurred.

Bloody hell! That reads like it's a "both ways" ruling. Can you try again is it:

[A] 3 hits on the original 7 bases at the time of fighting?
3 hits on the remaining 6 bases at the time of the test?

A or B please. KISS

[nikgaukroger]

Terry has said A in your examples. (*edit* for the 1HP2B modifier that is)

[madaxeman]

Terry has said A in your examples.

I believe that Terry has said A for the purposes of the modifier for hits per 3, but B for the purposes of the modifier for 25% losses......

[nikgaukroger]

Not that %age losses are calculated on a hit per base basis.

[madaxeman]

For the purposes of a single test which takes place after combat.... Terry has apparently said that one of the main modifiers in that test uses the number of bases before any base removal, but the other main modifier in the same test uses the number of bases in the unit after base removal.

I think that’s what Martin is questioning.

[nikgaukroger]

For the purposes of a single test which takes place after combat.... Terry has apparently said that one of the main modifiers in that test uses the number of bases before any base removal, but the other main modifier in the same test uses the number of bases in the unit after base removal.

Indeed.

[vexillia]

For the purposes of a single test which takes place after combat.... Terry has apparently said that one of the main modifiers in that test uses the number of bases before any base removal, but the other main modifier in the same test uses the number of bases in the unit after base removal.

I think that’s what Martin is questioning.

I am indeed.

I can see some form of logic for the hits (they were on 7 bases not six) but the logic for the 25% (taken after death rolls) throws me a bit. As clarified the test uses both the pre-combat state and the post combat state in the same test! However both are calculated post-combat.

Easy to apply but a bugger to remember. So much for simplicity.

[terrys]

Easy to apply but a bugger to remember. So much for simplicity.

I certainly can't remember this coming up in Beta testing....
Hitting 3 times against a BG that has only 7 bases remaining AND rolling a 1 on the death roll. - Fairly infrequent I think.

However, the rule says suffered 1HP2B "FROM" shooting or close combat..
It doesn't say 1HP2B "AFTER" combat or shooting - nor does that make sense.
In the same way that you wouldn't take a test on a 10-base BG if it took 3 hits from shooting - even if you failed the Death roll.

[madaxeman]

Well, technically it would happen with a roll of 1,2 or 3 on the death roll... so half the time in this example. It’d also affect 6xpacks that had already lost a base and then took 2 hits and rolled a 1 or 2 I guess.

But anyway, that doesn’t change Martins query as why, for a test that takes place after the death roll, the calculation of “25% losses” is based on the unit size after the death roll, but the calculation of “hits per X bases” is based on the unit size before the death roll.

Maybe one for the clarifications sheet ?

[vexillia]

But anyway, that doesn’t change Martins query as why, for a test that takes place after the death roll, the calculation of “25% losses” is based on the unit size after the death roll, but the calculation of “hits per X bases” is based on the unit size before the death roll.

The intention of the new sequence is clear but the reason for the additional complexity is not. After the initial clarification restating what the rules currently say doesn't move us forward. Neither does saying it's an infrequent event; there are lots of rules for things that don't happen often.

When did "death roll" move ahead of the test in the turn sequence? Version 2 or just version 3?

[shadowdragon]

Just my 2 cents / pence....

I find the Terry's explanation of the v3 sequence & definitions more logical than previous versions - and easier to remember since it never made sense to me that the death roll came after the post-combat CT since attrition is a consequence of combat. (I know there's an argument in ancient warfare that most casualties are suffered after a unit routs but the death roll was never contingent upon the CT result only on hits.) To me it's only "more complex" because it's different than previous versions and players may, therefore, find it difficult to remember but that should be resolved by (1) clearer wording of the rules and (2) repeated play. Otherwise the absolute complexity seems the same to me.

I see that there's not just pre-combat and post-combat but pre-combat (initial status of units), combat (reflected in combat intensity and attrition) and post-combat (final status of units). The post-combat CT should be affected by both intensity of combat (as reflected in 'hits per base') and attrition (% loss of bases). So, to me it makes sense that the death roll is prior to the CT determination since attrition is suffered throughout combat and adjudicated at the conclusion. Therefore, the CT roll should take into account the final attrition state of the unit (% loss). When it comes to combat intensity, reflected by hits suffered by bases participating in combat, the issue is, since attrition is inflicted throughout combat, what are the number of bases that suffer the 'combat intensity' (as reflected in the number of hits). Arguments can be made for the initial number of bases, the final number of bases or something in between (theoretically possible if more than one base is lost, but even more complex than going with initial or final number of bases). I suppose one could argue that the attrition is probably weighted to the end of the combat and therefore the intensity is suffered by the 'initial' number of bases.

If that's the argumentation, then the CT score takes into account:

1) The base losses suffered prior to the CT (and the death score is now before the CT); and
2) the combat intensity or hits per base that participated (i.e., the initial number of bases) in the combat.

So, I'm content to go along with Terry's explanation / clarification, but would suggest a clarification in the errata because it will certainly come up in play.

ETA: Of course, anything that shifts the advantage to 6-packs from 4-packs does have merit.

[ChrisTofalos]

Like!